I think it’s a damn stupid idea for Florida pastor Terry Jones to burn a Qur’an in public, given that a) It’s being done by religious loons who have trouble with Islam but not with their own faith. b) If you want to criticize Islam, there are more productive ways to do it. This accomplishes very little except to express one superstition’s dislike of another. c) It seems more a xenophobic right-wing gesture than a religious one. And, of course, there’s the elephant in the room (not so hidden, actually): d) The Qur’an-burning—as President Obama just stressed—is likely to ignite all kinds of protest in the Muslim world, leading to violence and death. As the New York Times says:
The reaction in the Muslim world, many Islamic experts said, could be as bad as, or perhaps even worse than, the reaction after a Danish newspaper published a cartoon in 2005 depicting the prophet Mohammad with his turban turning into a bomb. The cartoon ignited huge protests around the Muslim world. The United States stayed largely out of that, with riots and burnings directed toward Danish and European entities. But a burning of the Koran — Islam’s most sacred text — in Florida would unleash that anger directly at the United States, Muslim scholars warned.
And of course General Petraeus has warned that the repercussions could endanger U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
On the other hand, while it’s deeply inadvisable, it shouldn’t be illegal: degrading religious symbols is protected free speech. (Remember Andres Serrano’s “Piss Christ”?). P.Z.’s degradation of a cracker had nobler motives than does the Florida pastor, but the background is the same: public criticism of a faith one dislikes.
Or is it? Can we make a case that the likely reaction of Muslims places Qur’an-burning outside the bounds of free-speech protection, making it the equivalent of shouting “fire” in a crowded theater? And, if that’s so, then do we allow some criticism of religion—but only of those faiths whose adherents don’t threaten violent reprisal?
I have to say that I’m conflicted on this one, for I think all of us should have the right to publicly criticize religion, no matter how offensive it’s seen by believers. Yet it seems that if the religion under attack is one that’s prone to violent reprisals, that faith suddenly gains protection from criticism. While Catholics protested P.Z.’s piercing of a cracker, by and large they didn’t call for violence. And so, while the act caused debate, there was also a lot of support for it from skeptics and atheists. For obvious reasons, you don’t see that for Qur’an burning. But would burning a Qur’an suddenly become okay if it’s done by atheists protesting the repression of Islam, maybe with simultaneous immolation of the Old and New Testaments?
Question for discussion: should we refrain from criticizing those religions whose adherents threaten reprisal—or seem to take offense more readily? If so, does that give religion an impetus to become more violent and belligerent?
I don’t know where I come down on this issue, but I’d like to hear comments.
__________________
ADDENDUM: Let me add, because I suspect there will be many comments, that I don’t advocate weakening the First Amendment. What worries me most is the universal condemnation of this act combined with virtually no public discussion (even on the blogs I read) of whether this condemnation a) is given preferentially to those who criticize Islam rather than other faiths, b) is motivated more by fear of Islamic reprisals than of giving offense to believers, and c) will embolden Muslims to threaten even more violence. I’d like to have seen some public discussion about whether the stance of Obama, Petraeus et al. amounts to giving in to Islamic blackmail. What I’m trying to do here is foster that discussion. Oh, and I think it might have been better for the press to ignore this guy.
Is anybody interested in lice?
306 Comments
Here are some ideas on how to deal with it that I found interesting: http://coyotesings.wordpress.com/
I was wondering if it would be equally protected speech to fly over the burning with a monsoon bucket?
But I see Terry Jones has called off his plan, on the apparently spurious grounds that an Imam has called of plans to build a mosque near Ground Zero. These people seem to deal in half=truths and falsehoods.
I am sorry I have to disagree with you Dr Coyne. The guy, a much a I dislike him, I excercising a protected right.
That Islam is especially prone to violent reactions shouldn’t put speech concerning Islam in a different category than all other speech.
I think as liberals we should be the first ones to speak for this guys rights. If the first amendment doesn’t protect him, it protects no one.
Let me add here, lest I be misunderstood, that I don’t think the guy is violating the law. He has the legal right (unless he violates fire laws!) to burn the thing.
And I don’t at all advocate weakening the First Amendment. But one COULD make a case that the First Amendment doesn’t protect free speech if it has the foreseeable effect of inciting violence—the crowded theater effect. Indeed, that seems to be true here. And if you buy that, then there’s every motivation for religion to threaten violence to keep itself immune to criticism.
But wasn’t that also basically the argument put forward last year by Yale University Press when they decided not to include the Mohammad cartoons in Jytte Klausen’s book about the cartoons?
The town just to the north of you tried that in 1978, in Village of Skokie v. National Socialist Party of America, 373 N.E.2d 21 (Ill. 1978) and Collin v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1197 (7th Cir. 1978). The Village lost. The Illinois Supreme Court and the federal Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated the Village’s attempts to ban a Nazi march on the grounds that it was likely to provoke violence. As the state court held:
The case you’re suggesting one “COULD” make is simply the heckler’s veto–a prior restraint on the free expression of one party merely because a second party threatens to commit violence if the first is allowed to express his message. (I learn from that Wikipedia entry that the term “heckler’s veto” is a University of Chicago creation–and hey, that’s where my J.D. is from as well. Guess we’re all Maroons here.)
The crucial difference between a heckler’s veto and “fire in a crowded theater” is that the damages threatened by the latter act are due to the justifiable response by members of the audience. (One should also note that shouting “fire” is only objectionable if it’s false.)
The proper response to seeing someone burning a Qur’an, or marching around with a swastika banner, or screaming that “God hates fags” is derisive laughter, eye-rolling dismissal, and/or, at the most, counter-speech. Any act of violence that a member of the audience commits is the decision, and the responsibility, of that audience member, not the speaker. That is fundamentally difference from a situation in which a member of the “crowded” crowd panics at cries of “fire”: rushing for the exits, unlike shooting at Illinois Nazis, is a justifiable response.
Finally, it seems to me that an outspokenly atheist blog is a very bad place to consider supporting heckler’s-veto policies; there are few expressive acts that American society finds more offensive or worthy of banning than outspoken criticism of religion. Surely you recognize the Muhammad Cartoons, and Everybody Draw Muhammad Day, as the road from there to here, right? Plenty of threatened violence in those cases, and now the cops are at your door.
Grant authorities the power to shut down Pastor Jones’s Qur’an-burning, and Pharyngula, Butterflies and Wheels, Evolutionblog and WEIT are very likely next. I don’t think we’d have to look very far to find people who are willing to commit violence in response to Gnu Atheists’ blasphemy, especially (as you recognize) if they figure out that their threats will help authorities ban the speech they dislike.
So: The First Amendment forces us to let the guy burn his books. No heckler’s vetoes. We despised minorities will never end up on the happy side of that stuff.
Reading the Addendum again, as well as Jerry’s comments below (especially this one), it seems fairly clear that Jerry himself is not advocating a heckler’s veto. He’s actually worried that one might be materializing.
That does make this post a bit overly Socratic, though. (Now that I think about it, that approach is very U of C. U of C Law, anyway.)
Oh dear….
“Any act of violence that a member of the audience commits is the decision, and the responsibility, of that audience member, not the speaker.”
Are we back to the issue of free will vs determinism?
I quite agree with you, BTW. And agree that the solution to hate speech is neither violence nor censorship, but more speech.
Very likely, yes. (As John Danley recognized, downthread.)
That issue totally suffuses the law. There’s no way around it that I can see.
Just a correction, the First Amendment doesn’t force me (as suggested by your use of “us”) to do anything. It is a limitation by design against the federal government and, via the Fourteenth Amendment, state and local governments.
At no time, to my recollection, did the military or the Obama administration ever tell him he could not by force of law. He was asked not to, because we have soldiers over in, say, Afghanistan, for instance, and we would prefer their lives not be further risked needlessly because some pastor in Florida wants to “send a message” by burning Qurans in his backyard.
So these people with whom we are at war will benefit by inciting uprising against our troops who have been painted by those we fight as “neo-Crusaders” thanks to the ineptitude of the previous administration and its religious right ilk here in the US.
It is within reason, considering we are at war, to place limitations on actions that are frivolous and stupid—and even then, no such limitations defying the First Amendment were attempted.
Calling “fire” in a crowded theatre provokes a reaction in reasonable, otherwise calm individuals. Standing at the head of a heated mob and calling for a lynching is directly requesting violence. Those are the obvious exceptions to free speech.
With critiquing Islam in such a way that you might expect radicals to react violently, they aren’t getting caught in the heat of the moment and you aren’t calling for violence. Instead it’s the (predictable) overreaction of some individuals already primed for violence. I think the blame and responsibility is on those who have primed them for violence and have set their triggers, not those who ultimately set it off.
It reminds me of the sad cases where men throw acid in the faces of their daughters or sisters because they dishonoured their family for some real or imagined indiscretion. Sure you could say that the women could have expected retaliation but who gives a shit – the reaction is totally disproportionate and irrational that no part of me thinks the women deserve blame.
If this guy burned a Quaran during an armed stand-off that’s one thing, if he burned it and weeks later some already enraged zealot uses it as yet another reason for revenge, I’ve got to think the violence was coming anyway.
It looks like the fire dept. is going to give him a hose job if he pulls a lighter out.
The fire department’s efforts will likely not help. If this guy wants to continue with his objective he can just as easily pop the lid on a septic tank and film dumping the books in sewage.
This is only fodder to sell commercials. The extreme end of this is that the act will show that acid and rock throwing Muslims are too anti-social to entertain free thought and/or the buckling of Americans to give in to fear rather than point to the freedom to express anger over the worst attack ever on their homeland. Let him vent. Mohammedans who are offended by this haven’t read the book to which they profess to cling.
Far be it from the Muslim to be expected to brush off actions criticizing their law, though burning our flag is their tradition.
The guy has a little reading to do regarding the approach to those on Mars Hill. Though I understand his frustration, I don’t see his wisdom.
I don’t think you really can make that argument. There’s a real difference between the “crowded theater effect” and the predictable results of the book burning.
The theater patrons are reacting in a reasonable way to false information given them by the person who yelled “fire”. Thinking there’s a real fire, they’re attempting to flee, resulting in possible injuries to other patrons.
Any violence in response to the book burning is an illegal act, an irrational response to accurate data. The people burning the book aren’t misrepresenting what they’re doing, and responsibility for any violent reprisals are entirely on the heads of those committing violence.
This one isn’t hard for me to answer at all. Our values are more important than threats of violence, or potential threats of violence.
Same reason the Mosque, without question in my mind, should be “allowed”. I put that in quotes because there is literally no rational argument against it IMO.
I think if we have to change the way we live because of how this affects the war, then the war is lost already. There is no point in fighting it.
We’ve already done that.
I’m all for free speech and criticism. But what sort of criticism is burning a book? Has postmodernity taught America nothing? The combination of Church and State does not work because eventually someone’s religion gets the shitty end of the stick. How would the FL pastor feel if Bibles were being burned all over the world? There needs to be room for diversity of religion in the world, otherwise, holy war is imminent.
It’s the exact same criticism as throwing a cracker in the garbage.
The major religions are mutually exclusive. Burning a Koran does not limit religious diversity.
I’m not suggesting that burning the Qur’an limits religious diversity. I’m suggesting that the apparent motive of this pastor is to have one religion. For him the Bible is the only book and Christianity should be the only religion. My response is against that perspective.
Well said, Rob.
Insightful Ape, Dr Coyne clearly states he hasn’t made his mind up about this issue, how could you disagree? Odd.
Anyway. I put the stupidity of this lunatic that wants to burn Qur’ans along with the stupidity of holocaust denialism. You are free to do so if you want, but we are free to reply with a good and healthy belly laugh.
One question, then (before I withdraw before the likely firestorm): if violence DOES materialize, and people are killed by offended Muslims, will we all rise up in defense of the pastor, saying that it was not his fault? Or will we condemn him for doing something whose violent effects were fully predictable?
I would think the violence should be blamed on people who commit acts of violence.
What this guy is doing may be gut wrenching but it is not violent.
++ Ape, Kyle, and Ysor. I don’t understand why people are making this so difficult.
And yes, I’m for sane limits on free speech (as determined by courts): inciting panic, defamation, state secrets, and other cases where there’s a very direct link between the speech and harm.
Drawing comics and burning books fail a basic “obviousness test” pretty spectacularly.
Add “threats of violence” to my list of unprotected speech, of course. Can’t believe I forgot that one.
I think Jerry is “making this difficult” in an attempt to provoke precisely the kinds of reactions Insightful Ape and others are posting here.
Call it the Vaccination Theory of Jerry’s motivations here. Our responses are antibodies.
First off, I very much hope you are not for restricting speech on defamation. If I say I think you are stupid, that is defamation. But it is protected speech because it is opinion. In the US, defamation is legal. Slander and libel are not. Slander and libel must be claims of fact, and be *false*, and, in certain circumstances, must also be malicious–with the plaintiff bearing the responsibility of proving his or her case for slander or libel.
Secondly, “a very direct link between the speech and harm” is a very nebulous free speech exemption. Bad reviews, for instance, have a very direct link to harming the revenue of a business. By your standards, bad reviews (which are defamation) and cause “direct harm” would be illegal.
You might want to re-think your limitations on free speech.
Uh, no.
Er, what?
In the lexicon used in American law, “slander” and “libel” are just the two species of defamation. Claiming that defamation is legal but slander and libel aren’t is a bit like saying that Earth is beautiful but that the Northern and Southern Hemispheres are both disgusting.
Defamation is no more legal than libel and slander, because defamation is nothing more than the supercategory of libel + slander.
No, legally, you saying you think I’m stupid is not defamation; it’s a statement of an opinion. And even if it were defamation, it would be slander (which means nothing more than “spoken defamation”).
Indeed—and if you replace the phrases “slander and/or libel” above with the word “defamation,” the sentence remains true. In fact, the sentence would still say precisely the same thing.
There is, of course, a possible distinction between illegal (as in criminal) and tortious; defamation is the latter, but not usually the former. Same goes for slander and libel, because those are just the two species of defamation.
Of course, law (including common law) that renders defamation a tort is a noteworthy restriction on free speech. Like MoonShark, I think it’s often a legitimate restriction—though one must be very, very careful how broad it becomes. (Just ask Simon Singh.)
I meant “defamation” exactly as Rieux explained (and quite well, I might add).
Could we not condemn him for what he is doing and condemn the violence as well? I understand the right you have to free speech (Westboro) but I also understnad that you have the right to your own.
Your own speech could be “pastor Jones is a racist and an bigot, but he is allowed to burn the Koran, Muslims are allowed to protest it, but are not allowed to be violent”.
PS
Myers had a couple of pages of the Koran in the trash along with some pages from The God Delusion. His point was “nothing is sacred”, not crackers.
I second Insightful Ape. Don’t blame the pastor. Blame those that commit the acts of violence. They have no excuse.
It wouldn’t be his fault. It would be the fault of the Muslims who committed acts of violence. Muslims aren’t “fully predictable”; they’re people like everyone else, and if they’re not culpable for their actions because they’re infected by a hateful and insane religion, neither is the pastor culpable for his actions, for the same reason.
People keep acting like Islam is some kind of elemental force for insanity and violence. It’s not. It’s just another dumb religion.
I concur with Insightful Ape, too.
Violence should be blamed on its perpetrators.
Not even an act of murder would justify violent retribution; much less a mere desecration of religious icon. The pastor’s right to free speech should be respected and protected, but that shouldn’t stop us from criticizing his action.
As has been pointed out, if religions that threaten its critics with violent reprisal is given immunity, that will only encourage more religions to adopt such stance.
What if US drops bombs on mobs burning US flags in the public demonstration.
What if one calls the other one names on the street and the latter hits the former with his fist in the face.
In such cases that would be obviously blame on side of party which uses violence. Giving support to guys who use violence by bashing those who use only their voice would be clear signal that violence is an effective tool to silence critique.
This is also known as the “she was wearing a short skirt” rape defence.
Exactly right.
Or for the Muslim aware, the “a strange boy looked at her” murder (honour killing) defence.
I was thinking of the “men can’t help themselves” idea that seems to be used as a rationalization for covering, veiling and burqa-ing women in Muslim societies. If violence does occur it will be said that the pious rioters “could not help themselves” in the face of such an insult on their book.
It’s funny that people who would react with violence cannot see that their very reaction makes their religion look worse. They become caught up in the purely symbolic level to the extent that they cannot see or disregard the real-world harm, damage and injury that own actions (and the actions of their co-religionists in uncommented upon “normal” “acceptable” practices such as female genital mutilation, stoning accused adulterers to death, subjugating women to second (third?) class status )also make their beliefs look very bad.
I wonder, on the “other” side how many of the Koran-burners’ supporters would be aghast at burning the US flag, but have raised no objections to American use of torture in the “war against terror”? How many, I wonder, would support a constitutional amendment to ban the burning of the American flag but see nothing wrong with renditions and Gitmo? How many of those Catholics who were offended by Crackergate said not a word about the church’s protection of child-raping priests? I wonder. However many people this represents it is too many, all caught up in the harmlessly symbolic but blind to real world injuries. I suppose it depends on whose ox is being gored.
Of course, this would offer Allah a perfect opportunity to show up and rescue the Koran from the fire. Or make it miraculously fireproof or something. It would be a great teaching moment-if he/she/it/they actually existed.
So where do we draw the line? There doesn’t seem to be anything that doesn’t offend muslims.
Absolutely. There is no kind of criticism that Muslims do not try to silence for being “insulting”.
Right, cultural blackmail is what they’re up to.
Hmm, what if one said out loud, for all the Islamic/Muslim/Mohammadan world to hear, “I don’t think the Koran is worth one second of my time, one ounce of lighter fluid, one calorie of heat.” Would they take offense at THAT?
Seems Jerry already came down on one side in his response to the Danish cartoons. Are the motivations of the pastor and the cartoonist the only thing that gives him pause here? Free speech is free speech.
I definitely understand your conflict here. I think this pastor’s motives are breathtakingly petty and short-sighted. In all likelihood he is a xenophobic, uncaring fellow.
However, his speech is not going to directly harm anybody, so the analogy of yelling “fire” is mistaken. If we want to use the justification that “Islamists are going to flip out and kill people over this,” then we’d be able to use similar justifications to prohibit flag-burning, or any other type of speech that’s potentially offensive to a large and well-armed group of people.
Poking the hornet’s nest is a stupid thing to do, perhaps even an evil thing to do (this pastor is much more well-shielded from reprisals than our troops in the Middle East are) but it can’t be an illegal thing to do, in my opinion.
I honestly wish that Obama and other bigwigs had treated this guy with the silent contempt he deserves, rather than giving him the publicity that he craves.
I agree with your conclusion, but it’s worth noting that the clichéd fire-in-a-crowded-theater shout does not “directly hurt anybody,” either. In both that case and this one, it is the response to that speech by the audience that causes injury.
Again, I’m not disputing your conclusion. There are important distinctions between the two cases, but “direct harm” is not one of them.
The motivations of the responders would be the key difference.
And after hashing this question out, we can discuss whether giving in to blackmail is appropriate.
Are you really being serious, Jerry? Do we really want to teach the Christians that the way to protect themselves from atheist critique is to become violent?
What I’m serious about is that the entire country, from Obama to Petraeus on down—including even Sarah Palin—is suggesting precisely that: we should give in to Islamic blackmail. And that’s what worries me. I am worried as well that there has been no public debate of the blackmail issue. The upshot is that Islam seems to be gaining protection from criticism.
My inner cynic wonders if part of that is because the ones doing the book-burning won’t listen to arguments of ‘stop making this a holy war’ and ‘maybe people in glass churches shouldn’t throw stones’.
In other words, since the book-burners are already convinced that they are God’s chosen and Muslims are all violent terrorist heathens, that ‘don’t piss off the violent terrorist heathens’, might be the only thing that gets through to the book-burners.
That’s what worries me too. I think the guy in Florida who wants to do this is a jerk, but the threat of massive violence — and I think that is what is being threatened — though it is not clear by whom — is worse. R. Joseph Hoffmann thinks that the President should send US Marshalls to arrest the man, but is this really like shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre? What makes it like that? There needs to be a discussion about what kind of speech this is, and the discussion isn’t taking place.
Muslims could easily say, as Christians would, I think, if someone threatened to burn a Bible or even a stack of them: “Well, that’s what we would recommend, if you have no further use for them. Burning them is appropriate. Throwing them into a dumpster isn’t.” (Which is what made PZ’s comment much more powerful than a bonfire.)
But if the man wants to make a statement about Islam, he should be free to do so. And anyone else whould be free to call him a jerk. It’s a bit silly, one superstition calling another superstition and superstition.
Nevertheless, there’s an opportunity here, and no one is taking it. People could easily point out that this is a silly thing, but it’s something that free speech allows you to do. Criticism, even fairly graphic criticism, of another’s beliefs and practices is legitimate speech. Sorry, but that’s just the way it is. We may think some forms of it may be a bit stupid, and some people may even find it offensive, but that’s what it means to live in a free society.
If there is massive violence as a result of this, then that will be, in itself, a good reason, it seems to me, to have done it. It would demonstrate that there is, indeed, something deeply amiss with Islam, and something dangerous too.
‘superstition and superstition’ should read ‘superstition a superstition’. Proofread all you like, something always seems to get overlooked.
Am I the only one bothered that the people are raising these issues are the jingoistic or racist right and the people shooting them down are the supposed liberals?
It’s a disturbing reversal of roles when “conservatives” are for expanding government into bedrooms, foreign countries, and pews while “liberals” try to undermine or remove civil liberties.
Anyway, on with our scheduled rants…
Eric: “If there is massive violence as a result of this, then that will be, in itself, a good reason, it seems to me, to have done it. It would demonstrate that there is, indeed, something deeply amiss with Islam, and something dangerous too.”
Er, hasn’t that been amply demonstrated already?
“Er, hasn’t that been amply demonstrated already?”
Yes, probably, though the message doesn’t seem to have got through.
The most amazing thing about this whole thing is that a two-bit pastor in Florida, who was, I understand, dimissed from a church in Germany because of his autocratic behaviour, should become a world figure just because he threatens to burn a few books. Hitler burned whole libraries, and no one protested. They didn’t want to harm relations with Germany.
If Islam is really dangerous, why are so many people claiming it to be a religion of peace? Rauf, the imam of the proposed Cordoba Centre in New York, tells us that the root meaning of ‘Islam’ means peace. President Bush said the same thing. And everyone is falling over backwards to say that, of course, Muslims are a peace loving people. But everyone seems to be desperately afraid of these peace loving people!
In some ways I admire Pastor Jones. I think he’s probably a narrow minded bigot, but he’s opposed to something, and he’s ready to put himself on the line to say so. There’s not one newspaper in North America that stood up for the Danish cartoonist Westegaard. The only publication in the US to publish the cartoons was Free Inquiry, and Borders (in the US), and Indigo-Chapters (in Canada), refused to stock that issue. Here’s someone who is ready to say: I think this is shit.
As I say, I don’t think I’d like him very much, but I admire his pananche. His reasons for burning the Qu’ran are probably as benighted as the reasons given by any Muslims who will cause violence because he burns it. At least he’s saying something, and he’s not hurting anyone by burning books, though that, in itself, is perhaps a bad precedent to set. But how many people would like to say something like this, and are afraid? And the price will keep going up and up, until no one dares say anything, and this dangerous religion will have won.
The books I saw on the TV news on the BBC last night all seemed to be translations – I am not sure that they are seen in the same way as the Arabic original. Malacologist & geneticist Professor Steve Jones has said on many occasions “As I said to my publisher I don’t mind if they burn my books so long as they buy them first … ” Not a close Jones relative to the ‘pastor’ I hope.
As the two commentators I saw last night on the BBC said (including gay rights activist Peter Tatchell) they agreed with you that it was wrong to allow a small group like this to hold everyone to ransom over freedom of speech however it was also wrong to stop them from exercising freedom of speech. Personally I think ‘speech’ is a key thing here – allow criticism & comment – even insult – but let it remain at the level of speech. Yet neither group is ever going to listen to the other in a reasonable way.
I work in a library & consider it poor form to burn books generally – consider your carbon emissions. Express your discontent by recycling them appropriately. Having said that, a couple of years ago we were sent two large boxes with the complete works of the late loony L. Ron Hubbard. Sorry Earth, they went into the skip.
The Korans used at Muslim ceremonies I attended had both English and Persian translations on opposite pages as did the Torah at the local synagogue. This is a single sample and may be strictly anecdotal because the Koran used at the mosque may not have been ‘official’, but my Torah is.
Oops, typo, the Torah had Hebrew, of course.
Hi! I think the likely/foreseeable consequences of our actions matter: Therefore, I answer “yes” to both proposed questions.
In this case, I can not understand the goal(s) that are meant to be achieved by burning the book, and I would also need to know the (estimated) likelihood of actual “reprisal” (not just “threatened”).
Wow. So all it takes to get you to stop from doing anything (or to advocate that others stop from doing anything) is for another party to credibly threaten retaliatory violence.
Does it not bother you that you give overwhelming power to brutal thugs by adopting that policy?
If you don’t change your mind I’ll beat you up.
If you don’t stop threatening people I’ll kill this kitty.
You leave that kitty out of it or I’ll demand that you be disenvoweled.
I am deeply offended by your lack of respect for the 1st Amendment and threaten vague violence by some wackos if you don’t STFU.
Hi nichole! I answered the 3 below; some I think applies in reply to your comment.
I will expand on your point a bit: I am not arguing for a law against book burning. Therefore, I am not “[dis-]respecting” the 1st Amendment.
I am arguing that one consider the consequences when they act within their “Rights” or the “Law”.
Many people think it is heroic to never ‘give-up’ their ideals, damn the consequences: I find that both stupid and “immoral”.
Take Patrick’s beehive analogy above [ http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/on-burning-a-quran/#comment-43921 ]: If you and two kids came across such a nest and one started poking it you would act in one of two ways: (1) Either restrain them; OR (2) Leave with the other child. The 2nd option removes you and the other child from possible consequences, leaving the 1st to learn from experience. If you chose the 1st, you would argue with the child might get stung. If they were to reply with: “So? I do not care if I get stung.” You would reply with: “Fine, except I or little Timmy here might also get stung.” At this point you would either continue restraining them or ask him to wait until you have taken option 2: Both are considerations of the consequences.
Hi Rieux/Tulse/Tyro! Awesome! Of course: If something I do can or does cause someone else harm I care. This is the general case, and I consider an act “immoral” if one acts without consideration of the consequences.
If I were to parody your case: Would you still burn a book if the world were (credibly) threatened with total annihilation? I hope not.
I took the proposed question at it most general, and I interpreted it as more of question about do we take “threaten reprisal” into consideration in our decision-making? The answer is yes (if you wish to be moral.)
In this particular case, we are weighing the act of burning a book with the possible “reprisals”: So, you must determine the possible good of burning the book w/ the possible harm of “reprisals”. For me in this case, there is little good and little harm likely. So I am ambivalent on actually performing the act; I personally would not do it, not because I would be worried about the harm, but because I think there would be zero good from it.
I’m not convinced that these people are calm, rational people who were driven to violence by this extreme provocation. I expect them to carry out some form of violence anyway and if their demands are met they’ll make more demands until they can have their little riot.
So to your analogy, I would be expecting this madman to carry out his threats eventually, using increasingly less reasonable demands. At some point, he’s going to be set off and we’d be fools if we accepted his claims that it was all because some schmo burned a book, rather it’s because he’s a madman looking for an excuse.
As for whether I would burn the Quaran or not, it would be a political decision based on how well I could convey my message not on how some mullah would threaten to react. My message would definitely not be the same message Jones is trying to send so of course I’d pick different means. So if I were Jones, maybe his stunt isn’t such a bad thing (for him) – he’s got international coverage which he’d never get with a sternly worded rebuke.
Hi Tyro! I totally agree!
Taking the last part 1st, from Jones’ perspective, using my method (which I think people pretty do), he might be just fine: Basically getting the consequences he wants: Publicity/Recognition and confrontation. I personally condemn his particular action but I am not looking for it to be stopped by any intervention. For example, if I were talking by I would not intervene, but if asked I would say it was a dumb thing to do.
As for considering some of “these people” “madmen” looking for any excuse I also agree. Because I think ‘serious’ consequences are unlikely I would and do not object to many/most activities that might make for an excuse: If I were to do so I would have to object to even things like Dawkins’ actions which I do not. (To repeat: I do not condemn Dawkins! You know the internet and context and all! wink!)
The crowded theater scenario doesn’t apply here. There is no effort to deliberately create a “clear and present danger”. A controlled book burning in no way does that.
Of course we should allow free speech even under threat. Otherwise, as you pointed out, we embolden those that make such threats.
If the pastor was aiming his actions at an antisocial group of Muslims in close proximity to is church, I’d say his actions were akin to a gorilla pounding his chest or a bull elk bugling and brandishing his antlers.
“I have to say that I’m conflicted on this one,…”
Me too.
“should we refrain from criticizing those religions whose adherents threaten reprisal…?”
Absolutely not.
However burning a book is not criticism.
Rather than burning these books maybe Pastor Jones (who admits he hasn’t read the Quran) should read some selected passages.
See http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm for some suggestions.
Burning books may not be constructive criticism.
But it is criticism.
It doesn’t matter whether it’s criticism, constructive or otherwise or not. Does everything have to be run past some hypothetical committee of public validity before it’s allowed these days ?
I really can’t see what all the moral agonising is about, if Muslims react violently to this then that is entirely their responsibility, the fact that the President of the United States has thought it fit to get involved in such a silly and trivial affair is a defeat for civilized values in itself. It should be treated with the indifference it deserves and the Muslim world told to grow up and stop making threats.
Amen.
Well, in his defense, President Obama does have to deal with political pressure from Muslim countries, so of course he’d want to appear diplomatic with them.
Not that it’s a good thing but, well, life’s unfair, especially when you’re the leader of a nation and trying to improve foreign relations with people who appear to be looking for excuses to tell you where to stick it.
Do you think Obama got involved because as CinC his general in Afghanistan got involved and he is backing him up?
I think Obama did phrase it correctly when he called it a stunt.
Jones has won whether he burns the books or not.
I’ve re-examined my statement, compared it to my dictionary, and feel that it is correct. Burning a book is *not* any kind criticism. Criticism is passing or stating judgment.
Saying it’s a load of rubbish and should be burned. That’s criticism.
However I do readily accept that Jones is completely within his rights to burn the books. In fact at this point I think he should do so rather than appearing to back down in the face of threatened violence.
But it is criticism.
It’s saying “that book should be burned” AND THEN DOING IT.
How does the action based on the criticism make the criticism not exist?
While I vigorously oppose the planned burning,the constitutional right to do it must be defended. If the reaction of global Islam is violence, then that violence must be opposed and defended against. Otherwise, the world is being held hostage by a minority of its population. Responsibility for any violence following the burning, if it happens, is on the heads of the violent perpetrators, not the book burners.
Since when are adult human beings not responsible for their own acts? Where is J. P. Sartre when you really need him?
Rather than compare this to “Shouting Fire in a theater” speech, I think it should more aptly be compared to shouting “Cracker” in a room full of White Supremacists.
The results of shouting “Fire” can reasonably be expected to elicit a panic, where the people in the panic might UNINTENTIONALLY hurt others while trying to get out.
On the other side, yelling “Cracker” (or other offensive epithet) might have the effect of causing people to be angry, but any harm that results would be INTENTIONALLY inflicted.
So in this way, I don’t think burning the Qu’ran is like yelling “Fire” in a theater. I think it is like yelling “Mary was a whore” in a Catholic church. The reaction of those hearing the words and the intentionality of that reaction changes the situation for me. For that reason, I don’t think burning the qu’ran should be considered as something that could be limited just because we might infer the INTENTIONAL reaction of those offended.
On the other hand, I think it is a stupid publicity stunt that may get many people hurt. I hope the more moderate in the Muslim community will see the over-reaction of the extremists, and will condemn them publicly. I support the pastor’s right to do this stunt, but I think he’ll do more harm than good.
The major difference between this stunt and PZ’s Crackergate (though he did also defile the Qu’ran, Bible and God Delusion) is that PZ’s point was that NOTHING is sacred. The pastor’s point is that the Qu’ran is not sacred, but the bible is.
The pastor isn’t burning the Qu’ran in a mosque. He’s doing it at his own church. Your analogy doesn’t apply either.
That only makes the “fire in crowded theater” analogy less relevant.
He might as well burn it in a mosque–he’s making a public spectacle of it by discussing it with the media.
As far as I can tell the blame for making a spectacle belongs as much to the media as this guys.
They are falling over
each other to cover this story that in reality only deserves contemptuous disregard.
Which means that he’s gotten exactly what he was trying to get.
Roughly 1/5th of the planet is muslim. The “theater” or “room” is the world.
He can burn as many books as he wants in private with First Amendment protection in the states, but when this “event” is brought into an international forum, a clear motivation must be established so that any resulting emotional reaction can be adjudicated accordingly. Someone should tell him that it’s a lot harder to write a book than it is to burn one (also makes for a more effective critique).
This issue reminds me of the free will discussion. Maybe we should just count on reactionary determinism from all sides …
No, it doesn’t.
Violent reaction to this is bad, period. His motive is irrelevant.
Yes, violent reaction would be egregious considering complicity with free speech. However, other countries — to whom this burning will be broadcasted — do not even understand the luxuries afforded by such an amendment. It makes things worse when the act is demonstrated by a backward representative of an equally bogus mythology who knows he’ll be protected in the United States. This does not excuse reactionary violence, but illustrates the complexity of a dilemma involving global media coverage and international law.
And international law doesn’t apply.
He’s doing it in the US. With his own property.
Hey, some Muslims are offended by the sight of a woman who isn’t wrapped up in head-to-toe clothing, but the US broadcasts images of women (un)clad in everything from business suits to barely legal swimwear on the networks alone. By your logic, we should stop doing that because some Muslims are offended by it.
There is no privacy clause.
Then you could stop someone from doing something just by calling Channel 4.
Actually, there are a few exceptions to the general protection of the First Amendment based on judicial legislation and specific cases. For example, “speech that incites imminent danger” and Miller vs California come to mind. Nonetheless, I side with Hitchens when he points out that we should not tolerate religious intolerance. Human rights should always trump ideology, tradition, and theopolitical identity. However, in the final analysis, the pastor will do whatever he wants and the reactionary factions of Islam will react however they want. So where are we? This demonstration is not even principled enough to command the respect of the rights it wishes to explify. At least PZ Myers had the sense to burn multiple books promulgating the concept of nothing being sacred.
I’m not sure there is a direct link between the planned “christian-nuts-burning-book-day” and the violence of some radical muslims.
Let’s see the two aspects of the problem:
1. does the good pastor want to burn a quran in order to advance free speech? No, obviously. Burning books and free speech do not get along quite well. Would the good pastor tolerate a bible-burning? Would he call that free speech? Somehow, I doubt it.
In this case, freedom, free speech, blablabla, are just empty words, alibis. It’s all about revenge, xenophobia, stupidity, and probably a yearning for publicity.
2. do the feared radical muslims need a “christian-nuts-burning-book-day” to get angry? No. Do they care for free speech? No. Do they disagree with burning things? No (ask Salman Rushdie or Danish ambassies)
Was 9/11, or Madrid March 2004, or London July 2005, motivated by antimuslim bigotry? No. No burnt quran in those cities before (or after) the attacks.
In short, do nuts need other nuts for being nuts? No, they’re nuts, they love being nuts. Can we do something? Yes, we can read books, sell books, buy books, borrow books, talk about books, love books.
“Burning books and free speech do not get along quite well.”
What does this mean? Free speech doesn’t have to be tasteful or agreeable to be protected. The issue isn’t the pastor’s bigotry, that seems clear. What’s at issue is: do we condemn a nonviolent act for the violent acts in reaction to it? It would seem that that’s what is happening in our society over this.
“Free speech doesn’t have to be tasteful or agreeable to be protected”
Indeed. But is burning a book an exercise of free speech? I doubt it. Commenting a book, or exposing the fallacies printed in a book, that is free speech (see for instance http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/)
Burning books is “free speech” for illiterates, I guess…
“The issue isn’t the pastor’s bigotry”
Partly, it is. Everyone has every right to question the motives of this pastor.
“What’s at issue is: do we condemn a nonviolent act for the violent acts in reaction to it?”
As I wrote earlier, radical muslims doesn’t need the stupidity of one lone pastor to get violent. If not this christian-nuts-burning-book-day, they’ll always find (or invent) other alibis.
Of course the guy has the right to burn sausages or books on his lawn, and the police will have to protect him and his followers (hello, US taxpayers!) But I fail to see an ounce of free speech in this.
“Oh, and I think it might have been better for the press to ignore this guy.”
We don’t have a press. We have entertainment media, which likes to create public drama as a way of increasing its ratings and its advertising revenue.
Atheists should stage a counter demonstration in which they burn a whole host of holy texts-bibles,bhagavad gita,koran,satanic texts.that would be interesting.except that burning stuff doesnt really prove anything does it?
Throw in “Origin of the Species” (or an equivalent), and I’m in.
Make the point a book is a book. Nothing more, nothing less. It’s not sacred.
origin of species is not a holy book.might as well add a calculus book.evolution is true with or without it.the bible,koran,et al are al patently false.one wonders why you chose origin to be thrown in.that usually indicates someone who considers evolution a religious view.thats like saying gravity is a religious view
yeah and see how quickly that gets banned, there’s one thing that unites religious nuts, moderates and agnostics of all stamps and that’s righteous condemnation of atheists.
It proves that they are made out of wood and therefore are witches.
Of course, you could just put them on a balance with a duck on the other side.
Those who begin by burning books will end by burning people.
~Heihrich Heine
Indeed, I was just about to post along those lines but did a refresh first & saw yours. Since the creationaries continually and erroneously want to paint atheists as in the same camp as Hitler, here’s an incontrovertible instance of an action a la Hitler. That is the only thing stopping me advocating simultaneous Bible/Quran etc burnings to make the point that we all came out of Africa ~60K yrs ago and if we don’t soon wrap our heads around that idea, dump the tribal mythologies and start getting along, human existence on the planet is doomed.
And BTW, I saw a snippet on the news last night suggesting that the good pastor has some connection to Germany, but I didn’t catch the details.
In any event, one thing’s sure – Carl Hiaasen is taking notes on all of this.
Huh. I needed something to convince me to not be advocating some holy book burning, and I think you convinced me.
Silenced by threat of a Godwin… that’s a new one.
Ha! You have taught me a new one – thanx. I’d never heard of Godwin’s Law before. Amusing.
If the burning comes off, the question that should be posed to any male expressing indignation should be the same one posed to Schindler by his cellmate after he was thrown in jail for kissing a Jewish girl – “Did your dick fall off?”
That may be true. But we can’t blame
them for something they haven’t done.
I think we have to uphold the right to burn Bibles, Korans, flags, pictures of Sarah Palin, etc.
However, we also have the right to tell these people that they are stupid to do it because 1) it endangers a lot of innocent people and 2) it makes them look like a bunch of fascists.
And they are free to ignore what we say.
Will these idiots get some people killed? It’s quite likely. And we should publicly blame them for it for the rest of their stupid-ass lives.
The pastor’s book burning, though distasteful, isn’t a violent act. You are relieving those that commit violence from responsibility when you blame the pastor for their violence. Anyone who commits violence in reaction to a nonviolent act is responsible and should carry all the blame for their violence.
A point that a frighteningly large amount of people have trouble grasping.
If I go to the bleachers at yanqui stadium with my Red Sox cap on and shout out “yanquis suck”, who is to blame for my subsequent beating? Obviously the yanqui fans would be legally liable, but wouldn’t I still share some of the blame?
Both the law and the cause and effect would be pretty clear in that case. You would be legally in the right but still would have got beat up for being stupid.
A good example that comes to mind are the English football fans who taunted some Turkish fans after a game in Istanbul in 2000, including insulting their women and wiping their asses with a Turkish flag. Two of them got killed, because they expected a fist fight but got a knife fight instead. (Football culture varies with the region.)
The law was very clear about who was legally at fault — no verbal or visual provocation justifies the use of violence and certainly not deadly force — but who in their right mind provokes a fight like that on foreign turf?
I’m just saying that exercising a right is not always the right thing.
Yes, that was pretty much my point. Blame is like the wine at the wedding Jebus attended–there’s always plenty to go around, and if you run out you can always make more.
But blame is not the same as legal liability.
I’m not relieving any violent perps — likely religious extremists — of their responsbility for their crimes.
I’m also not relieving those who egg these nutters on for their portion of responsbility of harm that’s likely to come to others. They are putting others in harm’s way, but they don’t seem to care about that.
Burning a book is one of the stupidest forms of speech, but it is legal and in fact a US constitutional right. That doesn’t make it harmless.
Burning a religious text, including the Koran, is in no way the same as yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater.
Yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater is making a false claim of imminent physical danger. Burning a Koran is criticism, not a false claim of imminent physical danger. Burning a Koran is more akin to yelling “This movie sucks”, *outside* the theater, in a different neighborhood. If people inside the theater riot because of that, with no threat of physical harm, that is their fault. Words, insults, do not justify physical harm.
The guy burning the book is a jerk, and the people threatening reprisals are zealots. It is too bad that innocents may be hurt when the faithful all get in a lather, but then again hasn’t that been true throughout history?
Interesting that it is christian pastor provoking violence by insulting someone’s beliefs, not an angry, impolitic new atheist.
One thing that everybody knows is that Islam forbids the taking of innocent life, so there will be no repercussions.
But it is all about tolerance.
Chapter 111 of tke Koran is about burning a non-Muslim.
The power of Abu Lahab will perish, and he will perish.
Abu Lahab will die and be plunged in flaming Fire. His wife will have on her neck a halter of palm fiber.
His wealth and gains will not exempt him.
He will be plunged in flaming Fire,
And his wife, the wood-carrier,
Will have upon her neck a halter of palm-fibre.
Is it as wrong to burn a person as it is to burn the Quran?
Pastor Terry Jones must learn to tolerate Muslims going into a mosque and reciting chapters about burning people.
That is all that is needed. Toleration.
Of course apostates and gays do not count as “innocent life” as far as Islam is concerned.
Muslims happen to be the only ones not needing to learn toleration.
Right: I wouldn’t do it, there are
better ways to criticise, the people
doing the burning are as stupid as
those they are protesting—but it
shouldn’t be illegal. I disagree with
what you say but I would die for your
right to say it etc.
However, not doing it for fear of
violence is giving in to blackmail, no
two ways about it. In future, anyone
who is criticised just has to threaten
violence.
(Note: When someone criticises Islam
as a violent religion, the reaction is
often violent, and they don’t even
see the irony.)
It does suck that some people might die for that pastor’s right to free speech. But the pastor is less to blame than the leadership who put the people in harm’s way to begin with…
It’s like yelling at a little kid for knocking over a bunch of dominoes stacked up on a table. On a boat. In rough seas.
Gotta say that I’m similarly conflicted.
On the one hand, the pastor is clearly being a dick. And the motivation may be more of the message than the actual act.
But on the other hand, the pastor has a Constitutionally protected right to be a dick.
Is this equivalent to shouting “fire” in a crowded theater, or caving in to blackmail? The issue there is whether the First Amendment free speech protections are absolute; clearly that’s not the case. Try re-distributing kiddie porn (even of acts you had nothing to do with) under the “protection” of the First Amendment. You will quickly find that it protects you only as far as the nearest maximum security prison for sex offenders for the next 20 years or so.
So, we do place limits on speech. But is this act equivalent to kiddie porn? Or is it equivalent to the neo-Nazis who marched in Skokie?
I gotta say that my only conclusion is that this is another example of “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should”. And that anyone who claims there is such a thing as moral absolutism is a complete and total ‘moran’.
Oh yeah, and Hitchens is right. Religion poisons everything.
“just because you can, doesn’t mean you should” is exactly the argument used to condemn the atheist bus campaigns and gay pride parades. It is meaningless.
It’s also my current position with regard to Park51…so, I understand fully that it’s fence-sitting of the worst sort.
But I find myself unable to come up with an acceptable alternative position.
Yes, he’s allowed to. No, he shouldn’t do it.
It’s not meaningless. It’s an acknowledgment that sometimes adults can be conflicted in rational discourse.
It is the pretty much the same argument against, but the aims of the actions are different. Gay-pride parades and atheist signs aim to assert the rights of those groups.
Burning a book is a condemnation of another group’s views. It’s different than speaking up for oneself.
A protest march against the pope’s UK visit is a combination of the two: condemnation of the pope’s actions against human rights, but also an assertion of citizen’s rights not to have to pay for the damn visit.
All are legal, of course, thank the constitution (yes, Britain has one, too, sort of)!
Are you seriously asking that question? Do you honestly believe that burning a book might be equivalent to the rape of children?
You’re criticizing my analogy for being non-equivalent.
Well, if there is one innocent killed because of this, does that make the analogy equivalent? 10? 100? 1000? US soldiers? US children?
The issue the analogy was meant to highlight is whether the speech should be protected or not. Not all speech IS protected. That was the point of the analogy.
What about THIS speech? Is it protected? I think, on balance, that it is.
I also think, on balance, that it’s a dreadful idea…despite my being fully supportive of both Crackergate and Draw Mohammed Day. So, you see where my conflict lies. What separates this bit of theater from those? Why is one “hate speech” and the others not? (I would call Crackergate and DMD “ridicule” speech, not hate speech; for now that’s my story and I’m sticking to it for as long as it takes for me to change my mind again.)
However, if there is violence, especially in the US, I think that the pastor should be prosecuted for being complicit in fomenting that violence.
But I also think that the proper response from the Muslim community should be a public Koran reading — a teach-in. Or some other peaceful protest. That would de-fang this clown.
And that the proper response from everyone else should be ridicule. Laugh this pissant half-baked kook into irrelevancy. I think the politicians and all the other professional cluck-cluckers are clearly making things worse by taking this moran seriously.
Laughter would be the worst thing he could face.
Oh, I can think of all kinds of rational ways to defuse the situation. But that’s probably not what’s going to happen.
But in the end the fact remains that “he can but he shouldn’t” has been used most against gay pride parades and atheist billboards. Precisely for being “offensive”.
The whole point of raising this argument is to make the “undesirables” invisible.
Very good point!
Makes me wonder what the best response should be. What would you advocate?
Yes, yes, I agree. The argument has been used in spades for all sorts of behaviors that one person or another finds questionable/objectionable.
It’s also been used for me trying to reach a par 5 over water in 2 shots.
If the contention that “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should” is an inherently flawed position, you’re going to have to demonstrate to me what the moral absolutist position would be that corrects the flaw.
I believe what I’m stating is that we’re talking about moral and ethical relativism. In some instances, “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should” should be met with the response, “who the fuck cares what you think?”. In other situations, it might be the exactly appropriate thing to do.
Just because I CAN tell my nosy neighbor to “fuck off” every morning when he leaves for work, that doesn’t mean I should. Why not? Because it’s needlessly aggressive, provocational, and smacks of “being a dick”. Which doesn’t earn one many points in our evolved society.
BTW: I’m also going to take you to task for equating what clearly is intended as hate speech (burning of a book) with a mild statement that it’s OK to not believe in god (a bus sign), or a demonstrate in favor of simple human rights. I believe that would indeed be a false equivalency fallacy.
I’m convinced that Hitchens is more right than he ever was…religion poisons everything.
OK, true to a point.
But consider this: while Ken Ham can run a creation museum, I think he shouldn’t. Why? Because he mendacious; he is peddling lies.
But that isn’t the same thing as burning the Koran. Hateful and provocative as it may be, it is still a personal opinion. As such, I think it doesn’t belong to the same category as outright lies. So I can’t shre the view that just because he can, he shouldn’t
I must add though, as much as I despise Ken Ham, if there were violent protests against his museum leaving a trail of deaths and injuries (as has been the case in Afghanistan over the yet-to-happen Koran burning) then I would come out full force in his defense.
When one side expresses an idea (be it young earth creationism or Koran burning) and the other responds with violence, you side with the former. Period.
Your analogy isn’t entirely equivalent, because you have to rape children to make kiddie porn. Here, the crime may be committed after the “free speech” demonstration. Cart, horse. Whatnot.
That being said, of course he can do it and of course he shouldn’t. Tasteless little man wouldn’t want to look all spineless by baking down now, so he probably will do it. And some of the popularity he gains will probably turn into tithes.
No, because of course it’s not the pastor doing the killing. If I can offer an analogy back, is the fashion magazine that recommends short skirts and revealing tops responsible for the rapes of women who follow its advice?
In the US, this kind of speech is protected. And if I understand you correctly, the reason you are arguing it shouldn’t is not that it causes offence, or attacks some deeply held beliefs, but because it might make other people violent? Do you really want legal restrictions on that basis? Do you really want to make speech hostage to blackmail?
If the intent is to incite violence (in this case, reverse violence), then are there no legal remedies?
If the same pastor said “everyone in my church should bomb one abortion clinic a week” and then someone did exactly that, would there be no recourse against the pastor?
I “get” the whole heckler’s veto thing. But if I can be allowed to use the slippery slope argument without being eviscerated, there is probably a continuum. Not EVERY bit of EVERY speech is protected.
Where’s the dividing line? In this case, I think it stops short of pre-emptive legal action. However, I also don’t think the pastor is in any way absolved from violent acts done as a response to his provocation.
If I get into a verbal argument with you and call you a “lying mutherfucking dickhead”, and you sock me in the nose for it, I think the law would recognize that I’m at least party culpable.
You don’t see the difference between a) someone exhorting others to commit violence and b) others committing violence because they are offended?
The dividing line is between me telling someone to punch you, and someone punching you because they’re mad at something I said.
I think we need to remember, also, that the potential violence being mentioned here would largely be directed at US troops currently occupying Muslim countries abroad; the suggestion, it seems, is that we should curtail free speech in the name of military expediency. After the last decade – in which torture, illegal wiretapping, and a host of other crimes were covered up in the name of ‘national security,’ a policy continued as much under Obama as under Bush – I would think the last thing we would suggest is that political expression at home be curtailed for military goals abroad. Free societies throughout history have seen their rights curtailed and then abolished precisely in the name of the armed forces.
The problem, really, is that American propaganda abroad – of the inclusive, tolerant society, is belied by the genuinely large anti-Muslim movement in the country. If so many people – both on the street and in the government – didn’t buy into the idea that all Muslims are our enemies, then Muslims would be able to identify moderate, mainstream Americans from the crazies. But our actions lead many Muslims to do what we have done to Imam Rauf in New York; tar moderates with the actions of extremists. And in both the cases (of Islam and of America) many are reluctant to admit just how mainstream the extreme – jihadism and racism, respectively – is.
In an interesting side note, orthodox Jewish youth burned New Testaments outside their synagogue today http://www.haaretz.com/news/orthodox-jewish-youths-burn-new-testaments-in-or-yehuda-1.246153. When such events happen outside the context of a larger conflict, this causes hardly a ripple, ignored like all moronic, ignorant acts should be.
Ironic side-note, showing yet again that them that don’t know any history (are unaware that a niche has already been occupied, and to what result) are compelled to repeat it (re-evolve into it).
Certain parallels with the assassination of Folke Bernadotte (in which Yitzhak Shamir was involved), scarcely 3yrs after FB had led rescue of thousands of Jews from Germany at the end of WWI, could be drawn.
More book burning isn’t a good counter-protest. Even though I don’t much care for most of his work, Micheal Moore’s protest of the Westboro Baptist cretins was pretty awesome, where he followed them around in that van?
No. We should not exempt Islam from criticism based on the fact that some of its adherents are prone to violent reprisals. Many Christians live with a chip on their shoulders, ever vigilant about criticism. The current simmering anger about the mythical “danger of new atheism” should sober us all up. Religious zealots have for centuries resorted to violence when criticized, confronted, or ignored. Irrational beliefs lead to irrational acts. Exempting Islam now would lead directly to an even more assumed exemption for christianity, and we would all be doomed, completely and forever.
I don’t agree with this pastor burning books because I just don’t like books being mistreated. Apart from that, it is just a book and it’s his book, on his property he can do what he likes to it.
Any violence that occurs because of this should be blamed on those committing that violence.
Everything is and always should be open to criticism. Threats of violence should never be justification for withholding criticism. Appeasement, like giving in to blackmail, never works. The demands just become ever larger.
So, I disagree with the pastor about the burning of any book but I will fully support his right to do so, to do less is to give in to unreasonable demands.
Is this book burning gesture really incitement? Who is inciting what?
Based on past events, violence seems a likely outcome. However, the Pastor hasn’t advocated this violence. Nor is violence a justifiable response to his (mistaken) message.
Responsibility for any violence lies with the people who chose to respond that way (and especially with any Islamic authorities who whip their followers into an indignant frenzy over this.)
I don’t want to see intimidation tactics become a universal censorship tool for fundamentalists (again). Protection of free expression has to stand if we’re not to encourage this in the future.
The moral cowardice on show here is amazing. I live in Sweden where we have had our fair share of extremist Islamic threats to those who chose to exercise freedom of speech in criticizing their religion – notably in the case of the (very bad) cartoonist Lars Vilks. The most prominent daily newspaper here, Dagens Nyheter, reacted to the attack on Vilks, not by hiding from the issue but in defiantly sticking two fingers up at the idiots trying to kill him and printing the cartoon on its front page.
I happen to live about 100 meters away from the Dagens Nyheter building here and walk past it every day to take my son to school (just around the corner from the DN building). I completely support their stance.
My original home country (Ireland) passed laws about two years ago that would make the action of the pastor in question illegal – the notorious Irish blasphemy law. The wording of the Irish law was immediately taken by Pakistan and used to reword their own blasphemy legislation – except with an appropriately harsh islamic punishment rather than a monetary fine.
Yes the pastor in question is an idiot but his actions are essentially religious in nature (he believes islam is satanic and he is fighting against satan – stupid I know, but just as rational as most religious beliefs – certainly as rational as those threatening death as a reprisal). By the way the pastor has already been threatened with a death sentence by a legal Indonesian Islamic party if he goes ahead with his action.
As a DN subscriber when I lived there, thanks for posting that about them and the cartoons – I didn’t know.
Thanks, Sigmund. “Moral cowardice” sums up my thoughts almost spot-on.
Let them burn the books. They have a right to express themselves. But the idiot media should just NOT PUT THEM ALL OVER THE TV AND THE INTERNET. Problem solved. No one would know or care what they did beyond the 100 or so buffoons who show up.
You’re welcome.
Which prompts (NOT “begs”) the question: should the American media bear moral responsibility for any violence that takes place in retaliation to Jones’ stunt, which they publicized?
(I’d say no, but I don’t see any basis to conclude that said media is being any less jackassed in this case than Jones is.)
one more time…
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_SvsaNpaytxU/TF7QgADtAUI/AAAAAAAAI5k/AO1tMscCdTU/s400/fuckthisguy.jpg
Awesome.
It’s like the deputy in the movie “Blazing Saddles,” holding a gun to his own head. They can’t resist their capitalist, paper-selling profit-motivated impulses.
Was it the media? The event didn’t seem to get wide national coverage until Petraeus said it posed a threat to US troops. That announcement certainly made it a legitimate news topic.
Let me re-iterate the point in a simpler form:
The best way to counter violent intimidation is to show those who practice it that *it doesn’t work*.
The worst counter is to bow down to it and *let* it work.
The pastor is clearly a bozo. But I’d rather live with bozos on the loose than live under the tyranny of religious blackmail. For all the wrong reasons the bozo does us a service.
I would be happier if someone were also burning New Testaments across the street from his book-burning festival.
Let the Muslims react by burning bibles. One bible per koran. No-one gets hurt, the same number of books have been burnt by both sides, so both sides look equally stupid. A perfectly measured response.
I like this option. Let the burnings escalate until none are left!
Energy crisis potentially averted. I’d buy a car that gets 20 miles per bible.
What if the pastor said, “I could burn some Korans, but instead I’m going to burn some Bibles”?
It’s just paper. The idea, the concept (religion) remains (apparently) indestructible. We’re so sure of the basis of our faith that we have no qualms burning this material object?
It’s kind of like the composer Randall Thompson setting to music, in his “Testament of Freedom,” the words of Thomas Jefferson: “The God who gave us life, gave us liberty. At the same time, the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin, them.”
Beyond that, what if one announced that he was thinking about the theoretical possibility of destroying a copy of the Koran, Bible, Torah, etc.? Could it be the slippery slope toward “thought crime”?
Looks like everyone’s on the same page- the guy’s a jerk but it’s his right to be a jerk.
My main concern is for the plummeting butter sales- who’s going to protect the poor dairy people from the boycott?
Protect the butter!
Butter, hell—what about the other Terry Jones? Can you imagine what it’s going to be like, for the rest of his life, to travel to areas of the world with significant Muslim populations?
With this nonsense and now two years of Sarah (not Michael) Palin, it may not be a good time to be a Python. We should probably be on the lookout for crazed right-wing freaks named Idle, Cleese, or Gilliam.
Protect the Python, here, here!
One thing that influences my reaction is that Qur’an burning is going to be a very big deal, even more so than the motoons, for any Muslim, not just the fascists. So reacting strongly is not just appeasing radicals; it’s also expressing solidarity with people who, frankly, we need. (The idea that we can somehow disarm Islam by strident opposition alone is ludicrous. That’s not how it’s worked with Christianity. So, yes, we need the moderates to feel that we stand with them.)Unfortunately, I really don’t feel the outrage. It really is just a book and, in a perfect world, everyone would recognize that.
On a broadly related topic, Leon Weiseltier’s Mosque Notes. Some situations call for a pompous blowhard, and he’s just the man.
I believe that here in Canada, Jones could be charged with a hate crime. http://bit.ly/dqepi8 Perhaps this is further proof of the old adage about the difference between Americans and Canadians? “Americans are willing to sacrifice some order in exchange for freedom; Canadians are willing to sacrifice some freedom for order.” Fascinating discussion about a compelling issue.
Having lurked here a long time, this is my first comment. Though not a US citizen, I am deeply disturbed by the support that a book-burning gets from both religious nuts as well as level-headed atheists (whose support tends to be more passive and tentative, though, as evidenced in this thread). Burning books is an act I regard with the utmost contempt. It signals the deliberate destruction of human knowledge and ideas, and the support of censorship. This is diametrically opposed to what the current atheist movement stands for (or at least should, in my opinion). I am saddened to see people here, both Coyne and commenters, not condemning the idea of burning a book more than you do, that is what got me out of lurker mode.
Even though there are still more than enough copies of the Qur’an in the world, it is hard to see book-burning as a statement that if they could, they would censor the book out of existence, if they could. That makes this statement completely different from, say, the Danish cartoons, or the PZ’s cracker incident. It also makes it much worse than just being “not constructive criticism” of islam. (Him throwing parts of the Qur’an the The God Delusion in the trash left a foul taste in my mouth though. He should have made the point in a different way than destroying books.)
We atheists should be more secure about our ideas than supporting, even passively and tentatively, the obliteration of ideas (and historically important writings) we don’t like instead of meeting them with criticism and ridicule.
This kind of thinking, destroying ideas or symbols of ideas, that you don’t like have resulted in the destruction of ancient Buddha statues in Afghanistan, medieval stave churches in Norway and many historically important books being lost forever. We should actively go against this mentality before it spreads and become more serious, and I am disappointed to see atheists jump on the bandwagon just because the book being burned is the main text of a horrific religion.
I am not decided on the issue of legality of book burning, but it certainly is saying “I am against freedom of speech”. Again, 9 years later, the terrorists are successful in provoking Americans to betray their ideals.
Thanks for de-lurking.
The legality of book burning in the US is settled: it is completely legal if it complies with public-safety codes and such.
I agree that it’s contemptible, but it is quite legal as part of the “free speech” constitutional protections.
I’m appalled at the destruction of art (e.g. Afghan Buddha statues), but I think destroying a copy of artwork can itself be valid criticism or even valid art.
You can’t really use the term “obliterate” unless this Florida pastor is intend on destroying *every* copy of the Qur’an in the world… a task which is probably impossible anyway.
“It signals the deliberate destruction of human knowledge and ideas”
Unless there’s no more remaining plates, nope. These are disposable. There’s no net loss, and there may even be a net increase (publisher sees sales, publishes more since there’s a demand)
Now, a Gutenberg Bible, or First Edition of OotS or something else that’s non replaceable? OK, then I agree.
Moonshark and Rob: I am, of course, well aware that burning a book there are several copies of does not remove the contents from human knowledge. However, I can’t see a ceremonial book burning in any other way than an expression of the desire to do so. That’s a dangerous idea to pursue and support, and hence my strong opinion against it.
So what? “Expression of the desire to do so” is very obviously legal, and indeed within the human right to free expression.
“He is saying he wants to censor, so he should be censored” is one of the sillier arguments against free expression that I can imagine.
I didn’t make that argument. (Or at least I didn’t mean to.) My point was that burning books should be criticised to a greater degree than what I’ve seen from many in this thread, and been mentioned in Jerry’s original post.
Mantel:
“My point was that burning books should be criticised to a greater degree than what I’ve seen from many in this thread, and been mentioned in Jerry’s original post.”
You said you were for the PZ Cracker incident, but what’s the difference in your mind between burning the Koran and throwing the Koran in the trash?
Right, and I oppose that destructive ideology alongside you. But two issues:
1. You have to demonstrate that Pastor Jones actually holds that position.
According to Yahoo, he supports the right of Muslims to burn the Bible. Which he either understands the situation and is willing to risk the total obliteration of his own crazy book, or he’s a moron oblivious to the irony of his desires to eradicate Islam. FWIW I’m definitely not ruling out the latter!
2. Ideals are often thoroughly impractical. What would you say about a video of someone painting a scene in which a character is burning a book? Does that still feed a destructive ideology, if nothing is actually destroyed (and in fact two new things are created)? Does it matter?
I’m can’t say it’s worth spending many resources opposing what amounts to largely artistic interpretation. I’d rather use our courts to prosecute actual harm.
Not sure I agree with you on the Essential Evil of book-burning, without qualification. Burning all available copies of a book so no one gets to read it: wrong, absolutely. Burning a few copies (which are legally yours) of a widely published work, as part of a protest? Doesn’t seem the same to me.
For the record: I’m the second-worst bibliomaniac I know — the first being my wife. If you saw the inside of our house, you would see what I mean. Getting rid of excess books — especially trashing the hopelessly-dilapidated — is a traumatic experience for us. So I do not acquiesce lightly to biblioclasty.
I think Walter at #43 said what I was trying to say. (And much more eloquently.
Burning books as a ceremony is an act that to me is very disturbing, and due to a point being made I obviously see it as being much closer to trying to eradicate books, than to the trivial act of getting rid of excess books.
Maybe my view is comparable to the argument many in the atheistic movement makes that liberal religion legitimizes fundamental, violent religion: Accepting and even being positive to a ceremonial book burning of a widely available work you don’t like, make book burnings in general less condemnable.
Multiple people have already said that they’d have the same reaction if it was a book they did like, though.
Yes, it is. And the First Amendment very clearly protects the right to say “I would censor this book out of existence if I could.”
That’s a rather ironic paragraph—beginning with careful indecision about legality and then ending with a wail about Americans “betraying their ideals.” Ahem: according to the central American ideal embodied in the First Amendment, there is, and can be, nothing illegal about burning one’s own books.
The fact that you find this particular expressive activity offensive has no bearing whatsoever on Jones’ constitutional (and indeed human) right to engage in it; your discomfort with his expression is no more relevant than radical-feminist objections to pornography, elected officials’ distaste for speech criticizing them, or… religious objections to outspoken atheism.
I haven’t seen anyone on this thread arguing that burning Qur’ans is a swell thing to do. Many of us have noticed, however, that while Pastor Jones has a legal and human right to burn books he owns, no one has a right to threaten violence in retalition—and it is positively outrageous for anyone to expect Jones to muzzle his expression (or for a government entity to silence him) because of that kind of coercion.
Some of us think that there are worse and more destructive things in the world than burned (or, in Myers’ case, defaced) books. Among those things are attempts to silence unpopular speech with threats of violence. It would be nice if you took note of that issue.
I see you point about the freedom of speech dilemma. It is not so much that I find the activity offensive, it is a blatant attack on the central human (and American) value freedom of speech. That they use freedom of speech to protest it in such a way, is indeed ironic.
I have taken note of the issue of the threat of violence, but it was already being discussed thoroughly in this thread. I made a passing reference to it when I mentioned the Danish cartoons, which I obviously support, in order to say make it clear my opinion that that is not the main issue here, as Jerry Coyne and commenters make. (Although it is far from unimportant, of course, just not the reason I condemn a book burning ceremony.)
What about newspapers? The condemnation shouldn’t rest on the way the pages are bound should it?
This is complicated.
1. I detest the fact that Muslims around the world don’t understand that their religion does NOT deserve protection from criticism. But
2. The Muslims in the US are largely here BECAUSE of our freedoms. They seem to be under attack because of the horrific things that are done in the Islamic theocracies.
So, it is a delicate balance.
On my lightly read blog, I condemn the burning while mentioning this:
is unacceptable.
Does he need a license to incinerate books of any kind?
Just send the Fire Department along and hose him down…
For those who want more discussion: Ed Brayton also has a post about this, with a long comment thread ensuing.
About threats of violence: paradoxically, while it’s true that the Quran-burning will probably endanger the troops, that is still a bad reason to oppose it. The same danger existed w.r.t. Draw Mohammed Day or the Danish cartoons, but I don’t think too many of us here would oppose those on the grounds of “protect the troops”.
I’m also conflicted, but I think I’m against this pastor’s action (which is to say: I would use my speech rights to call him an asshat, not urge that he be legally prevented). My main reasons for opposing it are:
1) I can’t see how the proposed action is an effective demonstration of a critique of Islam that I would go along with (unlike PZ’s cracker stunt, which was a specific rebuttal to Church attempts to enforce reverence for their symbols outside their domain).
2) Doing it on 9/11 seems to me to fall into the blame-all-Muslims meme.
3) More generally, what I’ve read of “Dr.” Terry Jones makes me view him as an opportunistic shyster, a publicity-whore, and a bigot. While he talks a good line on some subjects (go read the church website — some of it is not too different from what Sam Harris or Dr. Coyne have been saying lately) I don’t trust him enough to believe this is really a principled protest, as opposed to jingoistic dog-whistle.
What if the Rev. Jones said: “I’m thinking about burning some number of Korans.” Or: I’m thinking about burning some number of Korans, but I’m not going to”? Or: “I could burn some number of Korans, but I’m not going to”?
Beyond that, what if some MUSLIM said, I’m thinking about burning some number of Korans, but I’m not going to (probably)”?
The cartoon analogy is an interesting one, especially when contrasted with the “shouting fire in a crowded theatre” (or calling “lynch him” at the head of an angry mob) analogy. After the cartoons were published, it was months before many people in the radical Muslim community noticed and then it took longer still for them to whip up anger using speeches, reprints and whatever rhetoric at their muster. If we step back, I think it’s clear that it’s this group of people that bear responsibility, not the cartoonists.
It’s a great feat of politiking that they’ve got even us convinced that the cartoonists or Quaran burners could be responsible, not the Muslim mullahs who use small excuses to incite violence.
Note: you might find the the point of view of an African atheist to be interesting.
If you don’t mind I will quote a movie which apparently (indeed, really) has nothing to do with this matter: Batman Begins. When Liam Neeson’s character urges not-yet-Batman Bruce Wayne to kill a criminal, he refuses, and when his master / future enemy tells him that his compassion is something is a weakness his enemies would not share, he replies “That’s why it’s important. It separates us from them”. I made this unlikely quote because it shows my point: rational, free-thinking, decent people should always be against things like burning books because it separates us (I think I am such a person) from them – people who may and do commit such actions, usually fundamentalists of some kind (essentially religious [think of the Inquisition... or indeed pastor Terry Jones] and/or political [think Nazis... or, again, right-winged pastor Terry Jones]).
I would not however make burning of books strictly illegal.
As for the final question: no, we should NOT refrain from criticizing religios due to fear of threats. But, as you himself said (point b) there are better ways to do it than to burn books
Taking the position that we shouldn’t burn books mean taking the position that people don’t own their own property.
Is that a message you really want to send?
I’m interested in what appears to be a book “carve out”. Is it because it’s a book? Or is it because they’re going to burn it?
To me, it’s just a symbol of the religion, not the religion itself. As such, it has no intrinsic value nor power other than that ascribed to it by believers. Ceci n’est pas une pipe, as Magritte once famously demonstrated.
If it’s merely a symbol, then where’s the dividing line between symbols we must respect and symbols we can safely mangle?
Or is it something other than the symbol that’s the issue?
I’m more and more coming down on the side of “it’s his right to do it, but it’s our right to ignore him, ostracize him, and subject him to whatever other forms of shunning/ridicule/disapprobation might be available.”
http://newhumanist.org.uk/1915/god-trumps-part-i
see the above link to New Humanist’s ‘God Trumps’ card game.
Look at the card on Islam – the ultimate trump card! Better than a T Rex in Dinosaur Trumps. You can’t criticize Islam without fear of reprisal. Sad but true. Just like the cartoons of Mohammed where the response was ‘You cannot say we are violent!! How dare you! We will kill you for this!’
Criticism of all religion should be freely allowed, as in theory it is. However there are better ways of doing it than burning a Qur’an. Why not rationally protest about honour killings, stonings etc etc. show Islam up as the women hating nonsense it is at the cultural level. I left Christianity when I realised how non sensical it’s prohibitions and rules were. Had someone burned a bible in front of me I may not have felt very disposed to them.
This Pastor is a wacko though. He wants a reaction because he wants more bums on seats, and praise Jesus, more money. Thanks to the media he may get that.
“Is anybody interested in lice?”
To read about, yes, to own, no.
To talk about, mh… it depends. Do these lice believe in god(s)?
The lice on your head think that you are god.
Use your power wisely.
Well, that depends on the lice. If they’re a species of lice that normally parasitizes members of the genus Canis, they believe in Dog.
I think the burning is a stupid thing to do, because I think burning books is stupid.
Any violent reactions are still the fault of the reactionary. We know there will be fall out, but it’s not the fault of the burner, the responsibility is down to the person choosing to [insert disproportionate response].
Yes, this is offensive, but, if Catholics can stand the defilement of their Lord and Saviour, then Muslims should learn to cope with Allah’s words being burnt.
If we give violent religions a free ride from being criticised, how will they move on and be able to deal with offense?
From An African point of view.
The US Supreme Court has upheld the right to burn an American Flag,So if an American can legally burn their flag, then they can legally burn the Judeo-christian bible and they can legally burn the Qur’an.And that’s the way it should be.
Read more below
http://quitstorm.blogspot.com/2010/09/usa-pastor-has-right-to-burn-quran.html
Although I don’t have much of a presence in the blogosphere I did post a blog entry yesterday saying why I thought burning the Koran was a bad idea and that there are other more productive ways to criticise religion. Book burning is not the way to go. Here’s the link to the post:
http://www.metalvortex.com/blog/2010/09/08/473.html
I agree with all the posts defending the right of the pastor to do this even if he is being a dick. Can’t some muslims find some area near to the pastor’s bonfire and for every copy of the Kuran thrown on the fire they can throw a copy of the Bible. After all the pastor can’t condemn them for doing exactly what he is doing.
Why do you refrain from using the “n” word for black Americans? Your have all the rights in the US to say it but you don’t. Why?
Burning of Korans is a similar issue just that it has even more serious and global impact. No matter what we say or believe in, we all know many muslims out there are sensitive about Mohammad and Koran. We can not argue with them about the freedom of speech because they don’t believe in such freedoms and they don’t follow our constituion. And some of them, like someone up there said, are morons.
I am as much for freedom of speech as any one else here. But sometimes we have to consider the consequences of practicing that freedom of speech/action versus the need to practice that right. Will it harm anyone’s beliefs, non-beliefs, rights, individual dignity if we don’t burn the Korans? I guess not.
There are articles, books and blogs all over the world criticizing Islam. Do Muslims come out on the streets every time? No.
You disappoint me again by putting constructive criticism and an act born out of hatred in the same category. How is burning Korans (or Bible) equivalent to criticizing Islam? Will this certain act make muslims, who are not violent at all, change the way they think or practice their religion or get more friendlier towards us? If no, then what’s the point of burning korans? And, if there is no point other than showing hatred, it’s not criticism.
PS. I am not justifying the violence that will arise in response to it. I am as much against it as you are. But I have probably met more of those than you ever did in your lifetime. You can not argue or reason with them. You can not explain them the constitutional rights because the rest of the world doesn’t follow American constitution. This act will just generate more hatred (and not just violence) and that’s why this act should be absolutely condemned.
I am surprised how many Americans talk like nobody knows muslims better than they do. For those who think so, not everything offends muslims. Many of them are pretty open to criticism as long as its healthy and not meant to be offensive. (BTW I am not a practicing muslim so don’t let my name give you the right to discard my opinion)
“But I have probably met more of those than you ever did in your lifetime. You can not argue or reason with them.”
Says the person who claims we shouldn’t insult Muslims.
@insightfulape.
1. Where did i say that?
I am probably one of those people who use swear words for god, jesus etc etc etc. But when I have my religious friends around, I refrain from doing that because I know they will be hurt and offended, will stop listening to even the reasonable stuff that i have to say and it would do me no harm not to say it in front of them. But at the same time I criticize whatever religion they practice for its flaws and dogmatic beliefs right in front of them.
No, there isn’t a fine line between criticism and being offensive. There is a very clear line and we should all see and respect that. So I’d say it now, yes we shouldn’t insult people because not all of them are going to threaten to kill us.
2. I think you made your point up there. If you want to “insult” people and not “criticize” them, you just want to provoke them. And, then say the one who did the violent act is the criminal.
If you still think “insulting” someone is his freedom of speech, you are just a rude person with no manners.
You are absolutely clueless what is freedom of speech and what isn’t. Freedom of speech is there specifically to protect controversial speech. Speech that no one finds offensive does not need protection.
And of course I will say the person who committs an act of violence is criminal. Responding to speech with violence is a dangerous legacy of-who else? Prophet Mohammad. It is in the same vein that Islamic preachers consider rape of “immodestly dressed” women justifiable.
I may be a rude person with no manners. You, on the other hand, are an authoritarian person trying to take away freedom of speech and take us back to the age of inquisition.
As YouTube member FactsVsReligion is fond of pointing out, there’s no such thing as the freedom to not be offended.
Excuse me, her exact words were “there’s no such thing as the right to not be offended.”
Slightly different.
What is the difference between using the n word and burning the Koran?
Your skin color is biology. Your creed isn’t.
Practicing freedom of speech “right”. Charming. That is the code word the cruelest dictatorships in the world use when trying to silence dissent. None if them will admit to having no free speech at all.
And what exactly qualifies as “constructive criticism” of Islam? Does giving a toll of people killed by mohammad count? Or his “marriage” to a 9 year old girl when he was 50? Or maybe pointing out that there isn’t a single islamic majority country in the world I can disclose I was raised Muslim and walked away without fearing for my life? Would that be a “contructive criticism”?
@insightfulape.
Sure go ahead, criticize Mohammad. You are arguing with me like I am a Muslim. Please save this argument for someone you want to provoke or “insult”.
I was born a muslim in a muslim country. Growing up as a teenager, I openly declared myself an atheist. I am still alive and still a citizen of that country.
I have all sorts of friends, atheists, agnostics, muslims, christians, jews. I have probably been better able to criticize them and make them see what they are doing wrong by trying to be friends with them and being respectful instead of “insulting” them and then expecting them to listen to me.
But then it seems like you are more interested in “insulting” people than making this world a more peaceful place. We have different priorities i guess.
Of course. My priority is preservation of freedom of expression. Which obviously you will be happy to see disappear forever.
I will believe that when you stop being a troll.
Rights are not the same as politeness.
Freedom of speech means nothing if it is only freedom for speech you like.
Freedom means that, sometimes, people are free to be jerks.
I completely agree with you Tulse. Freedom of speech definitely doesn’t mean freedom to practice what we want only. In fact I got into argument with someone on this site about this a couple of weeks ago. Its freedom to say/do whatever you want to do as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else.
My argument in this particular case is that as Americans freedom of speech is our constitutional right. We can not argue that with everyone in the rest of the world. In matters like these, with very serious consequences, we have to reconsider what is a better way to achieve our goals. If our goal is to make muslims see whats wrong with their religion, it is a very wrong way to do it. If our point is to provoke them and make them hate us, sure burn the korans.
Sometimes, human life is more important than our freedom of being a jerk.
Your goals and my goals are likely not Terry Jones’ goals. I agree that Jones is being an ass — I don’t agree that the State should tell him he can’t be an ass.
Just like, Tehmina is an ass, using the very rights she is trying to take away from others.
“My argument in this particular case is that as Americans freedom of speech is our constitutional right. We can not argue that with everyone in the rest of the world.”
Yes we can. It is happening here. We shouldn’t renounce our rights here because some people half the way across the world don’t like them.
@insightfulape
hahaha…. yeah i heard some fanatics muslim men say “yes we can do that. Its happening here. we shouldn’t renounce our values because some people half the way across the world (meaning America) don’t like them.” about covering their women up.
Go on. Live in your American bubble! (not that i agree with it but your argument has been used by the other side as well).
Well insightfulape, i will not use insulting remarks because i’m really doubtful about your educational, intellectual backgrounds and cultural experiences. I will ignore you now.
@Tulse. I agree. Governments should try to stay out of these issues. I feel they are more worried this time because the muslim countries have just starting trusting the American government thanks to Obama’s policies in the Middle east, Iran and Iraq. And the government worries that such stupid acts and reactions would ruin it.
When I meet a fanatic muslim i condemn the way muslims react to koran burnings. There is no point condemning them here because we all already agree on that. I have openly condemned such muslims on my Facebook and other blogs and there are many muslims who agree with me. Yet there are a few who get angry at me (just like insightfulape) for taking the side of the jerks!)
Just because I am saying what we are doing wrong, doesn’t mean I am defending the other side. We need to take responsibility for our own actions and their consequences before we can blame others.
And insightfulape, I have worked and sacrificed my life/relationships for the “freedoms” you are talking about. And, that is more important to me than the opinion of a person who talks no differently than the fanatics I have encountered all my life.
“And insightfulape, I have worked and sacrificed my life/relationships for the “freedoms” you are talking about. And, that is more important to me than the opinion of a person who talks no differently than the fanatics I have encountered all my life.”
That is precisely why I think freedom of expression (which to you needs quote marks) is more important than your opinion.
PZ helpfully points out that the book-burning here is indeed valid criticism of foreign radicals trying to dictate what Americans can do with their own private property.
Seriously, read PZ. Strikes me a pretty calm and rational criticism of the *policies and behavior* of Muslims, if not their religion directly. And it’s a criticism of Americans (e.g. Obama) who would bow to wacko fundie influence.
Sorry, here’s PZ’s blog entry, rather than the Pharyngula frontpage.
@moonshark. I agree. Believe me even most of the muslims agree with you. They don’t like the way some fanatics react to Koran burnings.
I just feel there are better ways to make those fanatics see what they are doing wrong. Everything has a “cause and effect” relationship. I don’t care how many Korans are burned or how they are burned or who burns them. But this is not how some muslims think. And, provoking them is not the way to go about it.
I defend the right of Jones to burn whatever he wants to burn. My question is should he because he could? But I do not agree with the argument that it is a constructive criticism.
I agree that governments should stay out of such issues and debates(both American and muslim governments).
“Well insightfulape, i will not use insulting remarks because i’m really doubtful about your educational, intellectual backgrounds and cultural experiences.”
I can assure you that is absolutely mutual. But the burning (which has been called off) would have the benefit of showing freedom of expression cannot be restricted, even by the likes of you.
I’ve always wondered what exactly it means for someone to call a white person a “honkie”? Just what does THAT mean? Does it mean a long, thin-hooked-nose person? “Just askin’ “.
I didn’t think well of PZ’s act, nor do I of what this pastor is doing.
With that said, I was far more concerned about the death threats that PZ received than about what he did, and, likewise, I’m more concerned about the death threats this pastor has received, will receive, along with attempts to prevent his freedom of expression.
The violence that too many Muslims (and really, many are a lot better than that, too–I don’t know percentages anywhere) threaten against opposition is the real problem here. If it were Bibles being burned, there’d be almost no mention of it in the news.
The threats of violence extant within Islam, especially to any male who leaves the faith, are an ongoing threat to humanity. Muslims need to (and I believe members of sects like the Sufis do) push for Islam to truly become a religion of peace.
Glen Davidson
Here is where our media is an utter failure.
So a guy in Florida, who is the pastor of a congregation of FIFTY people, is being given a national spotlight by our media. Why? What national interest does 50 hicks burning books hold?
Yeah, it’s unfortunate that the media have brought it so much attention. But no news agency would not broadcast this story unless all other news agency also agreed not to broadcast it. And that’s not gonna happen.
Simple. Controversy, no matter how stupid, is interesting.
This shit makes me angry. Terry Jones is a deluded idiot, but the real bad guys here are the other deluded idiots who would murder people for drawing cartoons or burning a fucking book. It’s so depressing that we even have to worry that people might be hurt as a result of offending someone’s religion. This sucks. Religion sucks.
Yeah religions suck!
I don’t care about all the other comments.
Just because some lunatics threaten or perform actual violence due to criticism, there is no reason to bow down in fear to their unreasonable behavior. In other words, they can go screw themselves.
Our (everyone’s) freedom of speech must be paramount.
LIFE, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
Liberty is not paramount, life is.
Spend a few days in north Korea. I think you may change your mind.
Nicole, if someone takes a life then punish them. In the US, freedom of speech is also paramount and does not defer to threats by lunatics.
By the way, “…life, liberty, pursuit of happiness..” is not part of the US constitution.
Hi! NEB: If you are ignoring the consequences to *other* peoples lives, then I would consider that an “immoral” decision-making process. Would I be mistaken?
Giving in to blackmailers never ever causes more problems than it solves, amiright?
Hi Rob! Fortunately I never ever use absolutes! wink!
One can *understand* why in Germany they might have different ideas about free speach or see Atheistmkm’s [ http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/on-burning-a-quran/#comment-44137 ] comment below.
What I mean to ask and point out is that NEB is being absolutist here (and that is fine): For him, the 1st amendment is paramount, for me it is the consequence to people. As such there are certainly times when you do not “bow down in fear”, just as there are times you do not take (nearly) pointless actions when the likely consequences are dire. (FYI: I do not believe this is such a case: See my comments far above in this thread.)
As Sigmund said in this thread “The moral cowardice on show here is amazing”.
Hi NEB! What “cowardice” do you refer to?
Yes, you would be very mistaken. The immoral act is committed by those doing the violence, not those exercising free speech.
Hi NEB! Ok, so I am curious how you can appropriate blame to someone who orders another to do something? For example: What crime (if any) would you say Albert Speer (or any leader at the time who did not physically commit any atrocious acts) committed?
Your statement is nonsense.
1. Ordering someone to do something is not protected free speech.
2. You attribute me to saying something I did not say.
3. This post is getting out of hand, so I am out of here via unsubscribe.
Hi or should I say bye NEB!
Very sorry you have left: I really did want a discussion; your point 1 is interesting and I would have liked to explore it (what is and is not “protected free” speech).
@NEB. Should we really consider any speech/action that endangers others’ lives as freedom of speech or action?
@czrpb, I agree with you. We are so stuck on the expression “freedom of speech” that we can’t see anything beyond it now.
“Should we really consider any speech/action that endangers others’ lives as freedom of speech or action?”
Absolutely. As long as we are not talking about physical threats.
“We are so stuck on the expression “freedom of speech” that we can’t see anything beyond it now.”
That is rich, coming from a web troll excercising the same right while posting online.
Hi Insightful Ape (@ 4:24)! Are we not postulating physical harm in this discussion?
Would you agree with what seems to be NEB’s position [ http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/on-burning-a-quran/#comment-44151 ] that the 1st amendment is paramount (over say consequences to people, which is what I assert is paramount)?
Freedom of expression is paramount. The only exception is direct threats.
I don’t see the point of your question. Sounds straight to me.
Hi Insightful Ape! You said @5:07: “Freedom of expression is paramount. The only exception is direct threats.”
So direct threats, on the harm of people, override FoE yes? This is what I thought this discussion was about?
But it seems I need to be clear: FoE is “Law” yes? I certainly do not want to change that. The discussion here is whether or not in deciding to exercise FoE one should take any consideration into account: I think the answer is an obvious yes: Specifically the potential and likelihood of consequences to people.
No, I haven’t interacted with you before, unless you happen to be Tehmina the troll, acting as your own sockpuppet.
Oh, and burning the Koran
is not posing a threat to anyone either. It is just a chemical reaction. But it’s OK, you are too simple minded to get that.
I do agree that there is something hilarious here.
And that is your tortured logic.
That is baloney, czrpb, and you know it.
Physical threats are illegal. Because they are typically followed by something YOU DO.
Koran burning in this case, if at all dangerous, is so because of something SOMEONE ELSE does. They aren’t the same. That is flawed logic. And no, freedom of expression is NOT THE LAW when you are talking about harming someone else. IT IS THE LAW when you are talking about expressing an opinion in general, as is the case in Koran burning. You really are not that dense, are you?
PS: The comment above (Insightful Ape
Posted September 9, 2010 at 8:21 pm)is not intended for you.
Hi Insightful Ape!
I do believe I misunderstood your second sentence about “physical threat”, thanks for clearing that up.
Because I did not understand the 1st time, I fear I am not understanding how your reply relates to my 2nd paragraph: Did your comment intend to address it?
If the exercise of free speech causes harm through a reasonable response then it should be curtailed. If I start yelling “bomb!” in the subway, for example, then panic is an entirely reasonable response. Violence in response to a book burning is not reasonable.
I think it’s sad that people are “warning” that this act could lead to violence without a hint of irony. They should instead be turning their attention to the people who they think will be committing the violence. Where are the voices telling people not to overreact?
OTOH, it’s totally reasonable to question the motives of the people doing it, distance ourselves from them and condemn them.
I think you can’t hear “the voices telling people not to overreact” here (on this blog or in this country) because we all agree on that. There is no point talking about something we all agree with.
The muslim governments I have noticed are refraining from making any comments (like all governments should). Muslim activists are going to protest (makes sense). Muslim scholars (who are more influential in muslim societies than the governments) have already declared terrorism and such killings unislamic. (http://seekersguidance.org/blog/2010/03/leading-islamic-scholars-detailed-fatwa-against-suicide-bombing-and-all-forms-of-terrorism-shaykh-tahir-qadri/comment-page-1/)
The sad fact is that there are some lunatics out there who will just do what they think is right (because god talks to them!) and no matter what you say to them. They are just waiting to be provoked. You have to understand their psychology first and then educate them about it and not provoke them first.
I guess governments of Iran, Malaysia, and Iraq don’t count?
Or the Interpol warning?
Its interesting to compare the reaction to this insignificant clergyman’s publicity stunt to the international silence (at least in the Islamic world) towards the case of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani who is awaiting death by stoning in Iran.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/09/quran-burning-reaction-pours-in-from-around-the-world/?iref=werecommend
Here are two situations to think about:
1. Let’s say I’m a guy from this country truly inspired by the work of Greg Mortensen. I decide that I want to join some non-profit organization to help the people from a Muslim country – I’d think it would be a basic requirement for me and my fellowmen to be sensitive to their culture. I say “fellowmen” as well because I would be looked upon the same way as just another ordinary person from this country. So morally, this event has the potential to cause harm to such a group of people who have all good intentions.
2. America has waged war against two Muslim countries this past decade – Afghanistan and Iraq. The most often cited motive is to provide freedom for the countries’ people from terror. The tax dollars of every person from this country is being used to support this. This event again has the potential to hamper these political ideologies that supported the war in the first place.
Morally and Politically, this event can cause harm in many ways. Legally, this guy is protected so I can’t argue against that. The problem is with the ramifications of that event in other facets.
Someone above asks what would qualify as constructive criticism of Islam? I would imagine that taking its prose (very similar to biblical prose) and demonstrating the weaknesses of it (just like Jerry here does it regarding Christianity more often) would qualify as constructive criticism.
I personally dislike the act of burning a book. I cannot help associating it with bigotry and shortsightedness of fanatic people. It is a futile way of stopping or changing an idea. However I do know well that the power of such an act is in it is symbolism not in the physical act itself; the Pastor may know this as well. That is why it is done: it will move and force many people to take a stand on a given issue. This concrete act, if carried out, will unleash the rave and violent reaction of many bad people, and also the honest anger of good ones.
The Pastor is protected by the first amendment of the constitution, and is in his right to do so regardless of how much we dislike the act. The freedom of speech and credo is the milestone of the human freedom. To stop him from exercising this right will be by far a more controversial and harmful act then burning the Coran. Stopping him for fear of the physical retaliation by extremist would be even a bigger blow to freedom. This is the very same value that this extremist would like to destroy. This is why society’s controlled by the Taliban’s and their similar are not only brutalized but also asphyxiating. The burning of the Coran, if carried out, will bring a lot of protests, and maybe some violence against American (free world) citizen and properties, and that is regrettable. But at same time we can say America didn’t give up the backbone principle of its society: freedom!
America government is doing right in trying to convince this guy not to go ahead with his crazy plan. But that is how far it should go, it is up to the Pastor to, individually, take the final decision of what to do or not to do. Same time America government should remind other governments asking for “energic action to stop the pastor”, that in the street of their respective countries, day by day, similar and worse acts are done and they do nothing to stop. This fact cannot serve as a justification for burning the Coran, rather reminder how hypocrite governments can be.
God by his own nature cannot have enemies, freedom has many. So let’s protect it!
Our population here in Uganda is one-tenth the size of America’s. So the 80 people who died on 11 July 2010 as a result of radical moslems, while they were watching sports on TV, was quite devastating to us. Living between Congo, Sudan, and Kenya (with a lot of Somalians in Kenya), many of us, including me, are very nervous about violent moslems.
Not too long ago, we would have considered publishing cartoons a perfectly normal activity. Now it’s become a “deadly insult to Islam,” and most Western papers won’t do it. The Overton Window is moving — what used to be fine is now “provoking Muslims.” Do we let it keep shifting? I mean, there are a lot of women with uncovered heads in the U.S., and CLEARLY that’s a deadly insult to Islam, and violent reprisal, while maybe condemned as inappropriate, is something we should obviously expect to happen.
I hope this crazy preacher burns his books. Maybe it’s a first step towards shifting the Overton Window back to a position in which only really outrageous things are considered insults, and in which we don’t meekly expect violent retribution for doing things that, a few years ago, were A-OK.
“I mean, there are a lot of women with uncovered heads in the U.S., and CLEARLY that’s a deadly insult to Islam . . . .
Yes, shouldn’t we similarly capitulate to delicate Muslim sensibilities? NOT! As the American-Muslim protested to Richard Dawkins “You ‘let’ your women do this or that . . . .”
We’ll let them do as they bloody well please!
It’s already been done. Operation Save America and Minutemen United, led by Flip Benham and Dave Daubenmire, conducted a ritual Koran burning at Columbus, Ohio, City Hall, July 22, 2004.
On public Koran burning, and respect for religion
The adult men then gathered around, and tore up a copy of the Koran. The shreds were then added to the bucket, and the contents were then set afire.
I suspect some entomologists are still interested in lice.
Burning the Koran is stupid because it accomplishes no good. Have there ever been any useful book burnings? I suspect most people will just say “wow, what a bunch of morons”, but of course with a population of a few hundred million you’re bound to get some raving murderous nuts as well. I would encourage the muslims in the USA to burn copies of the christian bible – but perhaps they don’t because they understand that there are also murderous christian nuts out there and they don’t believe it’s something worth dying for.
Now if that christian idiot burnt korans in Saudi Arabia and not in the safety of his own churchyard, then I’d be impressed. I’d still think he was an imbecile, but an impressive imbecile – at least worthy of the Darwin Award (except that he’s probably already infested the planet with his clones).
By the way, did PZ ever get any death threats from muslims after Crackergate? He did throw some pages of the koran into the basket along with those coffee grounds, banana peel, and one of Dawkins’ books.
Dane commenting here. The violent reactions to the Danish cartoons truly surprised most, if not all Danes. Especially since they came quite a long time after the publication of the cartoons. In the years following there have been ENDLESS discussions about this subject; “should they publish just because they could?”, “what’s the use of provocation for the sake of provocation”, “why would anyone want to offend a whole group of people “just because”?” etc etc. I honestly don’t care about whether Jyllandsposten (the paper that printed the cartoons) should have done it or not. It wasn’t illegal.
What really irritates me is that in Denmark the discussion about whether the cartoons should have been printed or not has taken up so much more space/time than the – in my point of view – much more serious matter of the sheer anger, violence and hate of the reactions. Honestly – it was just a few cartoons – and now you’re burning buildings and killing people?!?
If pastor Jones had asked me personally whether he should burn a qu’ran or not, I’d probably have said “no, it’s a silly thing to do”, but of course he can do anything he wants with his own copy of the book.
(Book-burnings do give me the shivers though … too vivid images from Berlin in the 30′ies appear in my head)
But there is a difference.
Nazi book burnings were acts of a state.
The cancelled Koran burning would be an act of one individual.
Oh, I perfectly realize that! (Which is why I also said that he can do whatever he feels like with his own copy of the Koran.)
It is just the concept of bookburning as a ritual that rubs me the wrong way.
I was trying to find the Las Vegas odds that the burning will happen, and didn’t, so if anyone knows where to look for that sort of thing, please post.
Meanwhile, FWIW, it seems that Jones’ website has been shut off:
http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/rackspace-pulls-plug-koran-burning-church%E2%80%99s-w
(I really am doing some work today, but it involves a lot of downtime waiting.)
It’s a complicated issue. If it was a radical Muslim cleric burning Bibles somewhere, what would be the Christian outcry? There is a radical, violent element within Islam which can be attributed to…? It seems to me the primary culprit is theocracy.
I wonder how the good preacher who is organizing this Koran-burning would feel and react if people showed up at it and started throwing bibles in the fire?
I wrote my own thoughts on this topic on my blog at http://www.meddlingkids.org/2010/09/on-the-proposed-koran-b-q/
from CNN website: “The U.S. pastor who sparked widespread outrage with a plan to burn copies of the Quran says he is canceling the event.”
Yeah … I only just read that in the Danish media. He can’t complain over lack of mediacoverage … meh
Interesting discussion. But is the question of violence only about possible reactions from Muslims? Isn’t it also that the act of burning the Qur’an, and declaring Islam to be ‘of the devil’, etc., could encourage violence *against* Muslims (or, at least, that it stokes the fires, so to speak, in which such violence becomes more possible)?
That would be the issue with ‘free speech for Nazis’, for instance – that if they are allowed free speech they are allowed to organise, which is very dangerous for the people they want to beat up or kill.
(I’m not therefore advocating either banning Qur’an burning or Nazis. But that argument has some force).
I say let him burn them. The action will make great ammunition for pointing out the repulsiveness of Christianity and conservatism while the reaction from Muslim crazies throughout the world will make excellent ammunition for pointing out the repulsiveness of Islam.
If he doesn’t do it, that’s fine too. Having more harmony in the world is seldom a bad thing. The way I see it, I stand to win either way.
This whole thing has been very interesting to me. I first heard about this Koran burning in July and it took me a while to figure out where I stand on it.
Here are my thoughts
1) this guy’s stated reason for doing this is to get Muslims to convert to christianty. DUMB.
2) regardless of his reasons for promoting this event, it should not be stopped by the government
2a) i know that hasn’t been suggested, but govt officials certainly have been trying to influence the decision (which i suppose is fine)
3) the backlash by the public, the media, and the president et al is ridiculous.
3a) while his reasons for the event are silly, the result of it doens’t direcly cause violence. that is, burning the koran isn’t violent
3b) the anticipated reaction of some groups is violent
3c) some have compared this to shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater. I don’t buy it; the reasonable reaction to ‘fire’ is to try to get out for self preservation. The rational response to some douche thousands of miles away (or 10 feet away) burning a book is to shrug and walk away, laugh, or drink a beer. It is NOT to become violent.
3d) has Obama closed Gitmo? ceased the practice of extraordinary rendition? and how are those drones doing in pakistan?
4) it really seems to me that saying because this will cause irrational people to do irrational things, namely violence over something that has no inherent effect on anything, is analogous to saying a girl dressing provocatively should have known that she’d be raped.
4a) Oh, this is different because this guy might not be the one feeling the consequences? then does any nut that is sufficiently insane and sufficiently capable of causing harm to others get to dictate what society will do or be prepared to face the consequences?
5) i’ve just read that he has, after meeting with a muslim leader, agreed to call off the burning and claims that the ground zero mosque will be withdrawn [the muslim said a meeting would be set up w the GZM cleric, but that nothing had been finalized]
5a) i find the controversy over the GZM just as silly as that of the burning.
5b) how close is too close, etc.
6) as much as i dislike the influence of religion in the world, i support religious freedom, freedom of speech, the GZM location, and the koran burning
7) that is all.
Maybe an appropriate reaction would have been to threaten a retaliatory (and proportional) burning of bibles. I think that the pastor is an asshole for his threat to burn the Qur’an since i can’t see what the point of it was supposed to be, other than to piss people off. However, as soon as threats of violence are offered as a response it almost becomes (for me) necessary to burn them to demonstrate that these threats are counter-productive.
I’m not American so the laws of the USA, or member states of, are not that familiar to me (I’m Finnish). I had to read the first amendment to be sure what it’s about and why it seems to matter to so many here. As it is about freedom of speech and expression as well as freedom of – and equally from – religion I see the relevance. But to me this is not about the law of the land. Freedom of speech is one of the 3 corner stones of modern western freedom and democracy (the other 2 being right to life and private property, in my opinion). It is so in every modern democracy, not just the USA. If one is willing to surrender them for any reason then one no longer has freedom or democracy. It’s easy to be pro free speech when what you have to disagree about is the best colour of lipstick. It’s times like these when you are tested: are your words hollow or will you suffer the threath of violence?
The pastor’s intent is insensitive but that should not matter. Wearing fur is insensitive to animal lovers as well as smoking in public is to non-smokers. Those groups don’t try to get their way by threathening random violence. And if they did we should not cave in because of the threath. Remember also how this attack on western freedoms builds a smoke screen to protect the bronze-age islamic culture: we mostly sit quiet as half the population (the female half) of the muslim world suffer horrible forms of bodily and mental torture, genital mutilation and refused education to give examples. Attack is the best form of defence.
Do not blame the press for all the publicity. The primary function of the press in a democracy is not to keep you updated on basketball scores and stock market fluctuations. It is to provoke your thought so you remember to guard your freedom and not take it for granted. It is to publicize just this kind of thing, preferably with insightful comments. It is usually the most radical manifestation of an idea that best provokes thought, not a watered-down version. Do not regret the defence of freedom of speech because some who excercise it are very dislikeable, beacuse Hillary Clinton and David Cameron tell you to, or because it infuriates people who do not understand it nor respect it. Freedom is so easy to relinquish – just this once and just a little bit – and you won’t get it back. Look at the recent witch hunts of “communists” in the McCarthian 50ies and “terrotists” this decade. Pastor Jones is dislikeable, but those storming against him would extinguish the candle that is called freedom in the west… just so he could not be seen for the dark.
Take a look at this authentic Arabic Quran on fire on YouTube. It was posted in 2007. It just looks like a Quran on fire to me.
Did you feel anything? Anger? Hatred? The desire to kill the person burning the book? Who or what has been harmed by the burning of this Quran?
Should the person who set this book on fire be found and killed? Should every person from the nation where he lives be targeted for execution as well? It seems absurd to atheists that the Quran demands Muslim’s kill anyone who burns the Quran and all their followers. It is the rapid oxidation of a material in the chemical process of combustion, releasing heat, light, and various reaction products to us.
Do we have to wait until all Muslim’s can learn enough science to realize a book, a cross or a flag burning is just an example of a material in the chemical process of combustion? No, we do not. We need to use our freedom of speech fully and clearly.
Bravissimo!
A common refrain from more repressive Hindus is “you wouldn’t insult a Muslim like that”… they are envious of the power of Islamic intimidation.
The lesson is quickly learnt.
“Can we make a case that the likely reaction of Muslims places Qur’an-burning outside the bounds of free-speech protection, making it the equivalent of shouting “fire” in a crowded theater? ”
Falsely shouting fire in a crowded and dark theater is an effort to scare people into leaving the theater in self-defense. No such fraudulent behavior is involved with any burning of one’s own property, even when its done in anticipation of provoking a violent counter-reaction. Its highly unethical behavior to deliberately and knowingly try to provoke large scale violence, but its wrong to assign legal liability with a person who burns their own property. The primary responsibility for any violent reaction is with the immature adults who attack other people’s property or other people, which is several orders of magnitude worse behavior then the completely harmless act, which injured no one, that they would be protesting.
I am somewhat divided in my opinion about all this.
First of all I think if these people bought the Quran, then they have any right to burn it. And frankly i see no reason or justification for ANYONE to criticize what they do with their property.
Of course these are lunatics and of course they are as inconsistent as one can be given that they don’t burn their own bible as well. But again that is not something that anyone should have a say in.
Given the fact that the Quran will be burned however i think there even might be something positive in the massive negative reactions that might occur.
Muslim mobs running around vandalizing and perhaps killing people as a reaction to such an event, perpetrated by no more than 50 people could in the long term even have a positive effect.
Sometimes it needs a catastrophe to actually make people aware of the problems that persist.
It might be that in the aftermath of the riots that could follow the burning, muslims will take a closer look at the inner problems within their faith or lets say with their fellow muslims that have a specific interpretation of it.
Is this worth the lives or the property that will be destroyed?
I do not know.
PZ helpfully points out that the book-burning here is indeed valid criticism of foreign radicals trying to dictate what Americans can do with their own private property.
And he’s wrong.And no “foreign radical” is dictating anything, unless you count Petraeus and Obama as foreign radicals.
And nothing is more stupid than the “I can burn books because I’m American” defense.
Quite a strawman you set fire on there – it’s stenching up the landscape.
PZ wasn’t on board with the reason for the book burning at all, but he also isn’t on board with the asked for infringement on US freedoms. The term “dictate” is your invention, so to turn around and note that there isn’t any such event is disingenious.
What PZ said was:
Welcome to the “fleet of deranged wackaloons”.
I don’t think it is a particularly thoughtful or intelligent protest/demonstration, I think the guy is just being a dick, but he has every right to express his dickishness. And for every one carrying on about tolerance and respect? Well that works both ways
Word.
A protest or its effectiveness is not subject to whether or not the protest itself is thoughtful or intelligent. This is the perfect example of such a case. A looney preacher in the most ironically obvious display of “a pot calling the kettle black” has made much of the western world think about issues like:
1) the value of freedom of speech and whether or not we are actually prepared to suffer violence to defend it
2) the double standard of religius tolerance where we expect lots of it from most denominations but none at all from muslims
3) ethical responsibilities associated with provocation
4) the gradual shifting of the Overton window
just to name some.
We are not confined to talk about the protest only in connection to the world view of the silly pastor. That is precisely why it makes absolutely no difference whether or not his protest is thoughtful or intelligent.
Hi 4 the Enlightenment! RE: your points 1 & 3, does that mean you believe there is some logic and/or reasonableness in taking the position that taking the consequences — particularly harm — to (all/other) people into account in this case?
Then, with this reasoning, might it make sense to object to the public burnings of Qur’an?
Hi czrpb, I don’t think that the physical harm to a potential victim has anything to do with the priciple here. I would prefer to call it a sequence of events in stead of consequence to emphasize that the death of NATO soldiers is not in any way a direct consequence of burning a qur’an (though this might seem like splitting hairs, I think its as important as not calling the murder of a young woman an “honour-killing”).
My points 1 and 3 were meant to illustrate that this issue has shown us that our political leaders and generals might not feel the same way about the foundations of our liberty as we do. That oil was to some worth hundreds of thousands of lives while freedom of expression is worth none, and that we finally see what the talk about spreading democracy comes down to when it’s not even stood up for at home much less than abroad when there aren’t any “spoils of war” to be had.
Thanks for helping to clarify my points.
Hi 4 the Enlightenment! I do not want to discuss/debate where someone does not want to, but I do love to do so. I will take no reply as an indication that you are not wanting to get into a long debate and I will certainly not read anything into it (everyone has a life and may not want to spend it answering my questions! grin!)
You said: “I would prefer to call it a sequence of events in stead of consequence . . .” So, and of course this is a hypothetical, say you and I are next to a bee’s nest. I poke it. You get stung. This seems ‘more’ than just “a sequence of events” yes? By analogy, someone somewhere might say that they participated in a riot due to the burning of the Qur’an. Assuming you do not object to the analogy too much, and that you would find me at fault for your getting stung, where does the analogy break down? Or if you prefer: In either case the consequences are reasonable to foresee, so instead of just a “sequence of events” why is it not a causal chain started by the burning?
“In either case the consequences are reasonable to foresee, so instead of just a ‘sequence of events’ why is it not a causal chain started by the burning?”
So, if I whip out a rocket launcher and blow up the local mall with it, well, the stupid people in there should have thought of that before they let that guy in the clothing store make a joke about short people.
The thing is, the response is NOT in any way “reasonable,” whether or not some nut job says he’s going to do it.
P.S. That’s just a hyperbolic example. I’m not going to do that. I don’t even have a rocket launcher.
Hey. I like to discuss/debate too, just seems like our time zones and schedules keep us hours apart. I would like to think that the analogy breaks down when you compare a human being to a bee. Also I would like to think that poking a bee hive is about the same as bulldozing the wall of a person’s house, not burning a copy of a book (s)he likes. I think that humans have the ability to control our responses especially when we are given several minutes to think about them. Remember that the counter-protesters are not acting before they have time to think. There is enough time to cool down in between if they wanted to.
Hi Kirth Gersen! You said: “The thing is, the response is NOT in any way “reasonable,” whether or not some nut job says he’s going to do it.”
I certainly did not mean to suggest the response is in any way reasonable: Those actions are theirs. But, if I can foresee that a particular consequence is likely how am I not responsible? I gather my analogy breaks down in your mind: Could you tell me where?
Sure. It seems to me that there’s a difference between weighing contingencies, on the one hand, and allowing them to control you, on the other. Statistically-speaking, we’re all quite likely to die every time we get in the car, but most of us don’t use that as a reason not to ever go anywhere. Some negative outcomes might always occur, but at some point we need to say, “Look, that outcome might well occur to me if I go into this situation, but it would just as likely occur to someone else if I didn’t. So I might as well be the one to go.”
I see it the same way with people who will kill over cartoons, or books. All indications are overwhelmingly that, if we don’t do those things, they’ll kill someone else anyway over some other BS “insult,” real or imagined.
To expand on the last point: I don’t think they’re killing people because of cartoons, or book burnings. Those are convenient excuses, nothing more. Take them away and the outcome doesn’t change the slightest bit — thus breaking your causal chain.
Hi 4 the Enlightenment! You said: “Remember that the counter-protesters are not acting before they have time to think. There is enough time to cool down in between if they wanted to.”
Excellent! Except, why is it relevant to *my* decision-making? You (and others I assume and it seems) dislike the part of the analogy between the bees and the people. Except people *are* predictable to a not insignificant degree; and even more importantly, one that I would think resonates here, *these* people are *very* predictable due to their religious inculcation!! Therefore, *I* (and you) can be quite certain how they will act. That of course does not absolve them of their actions, but I do not believe it absolves me of mine either.
Hi ! You said: “Take them away and the outcome doesn’t change the slightest bit — thus breaking your causal chain.”
I think this is a fair comment on this particular case! These people will find any excuse: I agree and do find it compelling.
RE this that you said: “Statistically-speaking, we’re all quite likely to die every time we get in the car, but most of us don’t use that as a reason not to ever go anywhere.”
The problem I have is that the book burning does not just put the book burner at risk but *other* people? How is that conscionable?
Hi! My comment above was for Kirth Gersen.
Got it. In reply, I personally feel that unless a conflict is forced, that in the long run MORE people will be put at risk rather than fewer. In other words, if a large demonstration of defiance antagonizes enough extremists to make a large-scale action (to which they are unsuited), and if they are imprisoned and/or humiliated in response, that might save years of small-scale murders.
I don’t know that it would work out this way, of course; I might be quite wrong. But I do personally feel it’s more likely to achieve a better long-term outcome than simply continuing to kowtow to their demands out of fear.
Well, it seems from the news that Afghans are rioting regardless of whether the Korans are being burned, and distributing pamphlets that say that the burning of the Koran is worse than the drone attacks.
Seriously people, it is just sad. I really can’t imagine anyone faced with a direct choice between the life of a person and a book choosing the book, and yet here we are, with folks choosing exactly that.
“The term “dictate” is your invention, so to turn around and note that there isn’t any such event is disingenious.”
TL,
sorry the quote I gave above which was the first paragraph of my post is not marked as such.But if you had paid attention you could have seen that it is a quote from moonshark’s comment above, and not my fabrication. I have told PZ that I disagree with him on this one already.
I was trying to get a new perspective on the issue so I re-read some of the news reports but replaced all the religion related words with another topic that occasionally sparks seemingly senseless violence: sports and specifically the greek football clubs Panathinaikos and Olympiakos (no offence fans). If you don’t know your way about Euro-football then substitute something like NY Rangers and Buffalo Sabres and exaggerate a little.
The thing works quite fine for a long time: “The president of Panathinaikos fan club threathened to burn the Olympiakos logo… the greek police warn that the burning might endanger police officers policing the cup game… etc.”
But then my attempts fail when I come to something like this: “A spokesman for the Olympiakos fan club in Afganistan told CNN, ‘If in Athens they were to burn our logo, we will target any Athenian, even if they are innocent, because the logo is our beautiful logo and we do not want someone to burn our beautiful logo.’” or “Hamas Olympiakos fan leader… …said, ‘I call upon our manager, if they want to rip the logo, for our manager to rip them apart and their town and make them an example for the Olympiakos fans.’”
I guess there is something special to the hate message here. It seems bizarre even in an atmosphere as venomous as sports hooligan feud.
I think it is well within his rights to burn the Koran. It may incite violence in some Muslims, but to me this is largely a freedom of speech issue. I do not agree with the reasons why we went into Afganistan and Iraq, but I do think that protecting our first amendment rights is something important that should be fought for even at the risk of violence or war.
It is precisely when reprisals are threatened that free speech is MOST necessary. The U.S. founders knew that suppression of speech has been the first weapon of every bully, tyrant, or thug throughout history, not to mention violence. The moment we begin kowtowing to threats of violence and giving up our free speech is the moment liberty dies.
Hi Garrett! Can you tell me who is most likely affected by the likely “reprisals” Coyne speaks of? Would you agree that this exercise of free speech carries little risk for Terry Jones, me (in the US), you (assuming you too are in the US) but much greater risk for others in the world? Is it not important to take into consider these likely consequences to *other* people?
Question for discussion: should we refrain from criticizing those religions whose adherents threaten reprisal—or seem to take offense more readily?
As if no one should criticize, say, the Catholic church for protecting child rapists and its AIDS-spreading anti-condom campaign, if only that church and its members would threaten to issue dead-or-alive fatwas, burn embassies, murder writers, directors and translators, and crash airplanes into skyscrapers?
No. Of course not. No.
Hi Daniel Murphy! I believe the answer to Coyne’s question is the exact opposite: “Yes. Of course. Yes.” You are saying we should not take into consideration the consequences of our (criticizing) actions?
What if the consequences are that you — as the doer of the action — might be harmed in reprisal? You are willing to take that risk for yourself yes?
Now, what if *other* people are likely to be harmed? Are you not putting them at risk? How is it conscionable to act in a way that might be reasonable foreseen to cause harm to *others*?
In case no one reads any of my other comments: I am not arguing to never criticize or to not criticize in this case: But that is not how I understand the question: The question is: ‘Might there be cases were we refrain due to likely and foreseeable reprisal?’ I think to not make a determination of foreseeable consequences, but to ‘damn the consequences’ (not something Daniel said this in this comment) to *other* people is immoral.
You ask: “You are saying we should not take into consideration the consequences of our (criticizing) actions?”
No, I wrote nothing remotely like that.
Jerry’s question was: “should we refrain from criticizing those religions whose adherents threaten reprisal—or seem to take offense more readily? ”
Jerry’s question was not: “should we not take into consideration the consequences of our (criticizing) actions?”
Nor did I understand his question to be: “Might there be cases were we refrain due to likely and foreseeable reprisal?”
That question I can answer, but it seems rather obvious: It’s always wise to weigh one’s objectives, the probable effectiveness of one’s efforts to achieve those objectives, and the probable consequences of those efforts. Prudence is a virtue.
But should we not criticize some religion or for that matter any ideology becaues some of its adherents respond or threaten to respond or can be anticipated to respond to criticism with violence?
That, to me, was the thrust of Jerry’s question. And the answer, to me, seems to me to be obviously “no.”
Hi Daniel Murphy! My guess is that we basically agree, but I want to completely understand what you write: “But should we not criticize some religion or for that matter any ideology becaues some of its adherents respond or threaten to respond or can be anticipated to respond to criticism with violence? . . . no.”
I guess I am confused: Why is the answer not: “Sometimes.” or “In certain cases.” or “Maybe: Understand circumstances.” “No” is absolute, which you do not sound to be: What am I missing?
(Note: If you review some of these comments — say NewEnglandBob’s [ http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/09/09/on-burning-a-quran/#comment-44109 ] — my understanding (which seems reasonable) of his comments is a ‘damn the consequences’ attitude: ‘My 1st amendment right is paramount.’ I am not sure the answer to my question is as obvious to you and me as to others, though I am not sure why.)
This is a case of “dog eats dog” – the guy who wants to burn the koran is clearly a nut.
What I find horrifying are the comments that I hear from Hillary, Petraes and the big chief himself decrying this man’s action – but not a word is mentioned about the craziness of muslims rioting in Pakistan and other Islamic countries calling for blood!
Petraeus should be ashamed of himself! What is he fighting for? It seems that he is certainly NOT fighting to preserve free speech!
Sure – some nut who burns the koran will inflame a crowd of ignorant and uneducated nuts in the middle east and elsewhere – it makes Petraeus’s job harder – but that is what happens in every job – some things are harder than others.
This could be an opportunity to start conveying to nutty islamists that free speech in the better run western countries is as “sacred” (For want of a better expression) to everyone, including Atheists.
But to god-fearing Hillary and rev. Wright fearing Obama that opportunity has escaped them.
It’s certainly possible to object to the point of the act without advocating restrictions on freedom of expression. But one outcome that atheists and pro-Separation people badly want is for theists to become less super-charged in their reactions to these kinds of events. In Western countries with robust protections of civil liberties, most Christians barely bat an eyelash when Slayer plays a concert or someone throws away a magic cracker. Yes, some of them squeak, but there is no one burning down McDonalds. Whether it’s Terry Jones burning Qurans, or intellectuals directly confronting imams with arguments, ultimately this is having the *exact same effect* of desensitizing Muslims to “blasphemy” against their creed, regardless of whether it’s distasteful charlatans like Jones who are doing it. This is a very good thing. We should do this more, more, more until outrage fatigue sets into Muslims everywhere. We’ve then taken away one more defense mechanism that religion has. If you’re restricting your behavior toward different groups of people because you’re afraid of their reaction, then you’ve created an environment where the the loudest and most bullying are rewarded.
I had to ask myself the question, has that preacher read the Quran before he decided to burn it, or is his information based on what he has heard? I looked at the first two books of the Quran and found a lot of parallels to the Bible. I posted what I had found. http://biblecompare.wordpress.com/
Of course the Koran (seriously, someone needs to come up with an official English spelling of that word) looks similar to the Bible, it’s heavily influenced by the Bible. That’s why it’s called the third Abrahamic religion.
5 Trackbacks/Pingbacks
[...] Seperation of Church and State, Why Evolution is True 0 There’s a good post over at Why Evolution is True on the FL pastor who vows to burn the Qur’an. It’s author, Jerry Coyne, is torn between [...]
[...] couple of worth-reading posts went up today about the Koran-burning pastor in Florida. Jerry Coyne wonders about the liabilities of such “blasphemous” behavior in light of the religious [...]
[...] and insatiable bloodlusts), and I won’t accept that as a bargaining chip. In a post on Why Evolution Is True, Jerry Coyne asks: Can we make a case that the likely reaction of Muslims places Qur’an-burning [...]
[...] comments from Jerry Coyne’s On burning a Qur’an: There’s not one newspaper in North America that stood up for the Danish cartoonist Westegaard. [...]
[...] On burning a Qur’an I think it’s a damn stupid idea for Florida pastor Terry Jones to burn a Qur’an in public, given that a) [...] [...]