Robert Gates made a compelling case for burning the Koran.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

I do not believe that Islam is of the devil. I do no believe that flying planes into tall buildings is something called for in the teachings of Mohammed. I do not believe that deliberately offending over a billion people is something one should do without a damn good reason.

But at the point where it is not possible to burn the Koran without provoking a violent response, as Gates and Obama and Interpol assure us it isn't, I think it becomes necessary to do so, to stand up to the attempt to make it impossible - exactly as it only became necessary for newspapers to reprint the Mohammed cartoons because of the amount of harassment and number of threats directed at the Jyllands-posten.

I believe that the right to burn the Koran is a vital one. The only reason I can see to exercise that right is to preserve it, but right now it's under severe threat - of criminalisation in most Islamic countries, and of threat of violence everywhere. And I think that makes it necessary to exercise it.

I wish that there were some way to preserve that right without offending and (more importantly) upsetting the many Muslims who limit their opposition to Koran-burning the purely verbal rather than to attempts at coercion, but right now I think that there are too many who don't for that to be an overriding concern.


I think there are two other strong arguments besides "is would make a great many people who haven't done anything wrong unhappy" that need dealing with.

The first is that if one organises a symbolic burning of the Koran then most of the people who turn up to attend will be people like Terry Jones; the message that gets out will almost certainly be "Islam is of the devil" rather than "the right to free speech must be protected against harassment and coercion". But I don't think that the fact that Hitler was fond of partridge pie is a good reason to become a vegetarian.

The second strong argument against is, of course, the one set out by Obama and Gates - standing up to bullies is only a sensible strategy when one doesn't mind being bashed. Arguably it would be better to wait until (if?) American troops are not deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan in such numbers. But, to be honest, I can't see a time when it's much less risky to do so emerging any time soon. This is the reason why I'm posting anonymously about the subject on an internet discussion forum rather than burning a Koran in the street on live TV - I freely admit I'm a coward, and I don't want to be subjected to the kind of response it was predicted Jones would have provoked had he gone ahead - and I also don't want other people to be killed on my account. But just because I don't intend to do something doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do. It may be that those who are using the threat of violence to prevent the burning of the Koran are sufficiently powerful that giving in to them is the right thing to do, but I very much hope it isn't.


I don't want to live in a world where people burn books. But I'd far rather live in one where they do than one where they can't.

[kristopher]

1. I can understand that sentiment.

How many lives are worth making that statement at this moment in time?

I'm not being flip, but your considerations omit the cost of the action with its focus on the cost of giving in to the threats of violence. In order to fully explore your perspective it would be helpful to know specifically how you would feel if you endorse the book burning and there is a wave of otherwise unnecessary violence that kills several hundred US service members overseas?

What would be the post you would write in response to that headline?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

20. Arguably you're right, but I think that if so then it's a massive blow to freedom of speech.

Saying "we voluntarily agree not to say this, but we maintain the right to do so if we choose" is a perfectly good way of preserving freedom of speech, *except* when it's said under threat - agreeing not to exercise a right under threat of violence is essentially surrendering that right.

I don't dismiss the consideration you raise- you might want to reread the paragraph I wrote dealing with it. I think "the bully is strong, we don't want to stand up to him because they might bash us" is nowhere near as foolish a sentiment as it sounds. But I think there are several counterarguments, none necessarily sufficient:


:-Fighting against people who want to restrict the right of freedom of speech of your citizens is pretty much the core purpose of an army.

:-I don't think that "kills several hundred US service members" is a sensible estimate of the scale of the likely consequences. For one thing, I suspect that most of the people likely to react with violence to Koran burning are probably also likely to react with violence to the presence of US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

:-If one person burns a book and another commits murder in response, I'm not sure it's fair to blame the former rather than the latter. Obviously, that's not much consolation to the victim, though.

:-"At this moment in time" arguably implies that a better moment is likely to arrise in the forseeable future, and that you would support burning the Koran at that point. Is this the case?


But, yes, I think the "Muslims will kill people other than you if you do this" argument is a strong and arguably sufficient one. Agreeing not to exercise a right under threat of violence is essentially admitting that that right does not exist, but arguably at this point preserving this particular facet of the right to freedom of speech is not worth the number of deaths it would cause.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jefferson_dem]

4. "Magic book"

Bigoted much?

[jgraz]

5. Show me where my description is inaccurate.

[paulk]

38. hey - if you manage to find out what DU rule

calling the bible a "magic book" violated, be sure to let us know!

[jgraz]

42. I dunno. Is the Bible running as a Democrat this year?

I didn't think insulting a book or those who would kill over it would be a violation.

[jefferson_dem]

51. This one.

"Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements."

I'm glad to see the offensive slur was taken down.

[paulk]

52. that seems a liberal reading of the rule

at best

[polmaven]

57. How about these?

Extreme group insult aimed at all or some DU members.

Insensitive (bigotry, hate, ridicule, stereotyping) toward certain groups of people.

Inappropriate, inflammatory, or over-the-top.

I took these from the list at the "alert" page. I didn't see the original post. It was deleted before I opened the OP, but I can ge a gist of what it said. There are many DUers who are people of faith, and to insult all of us by constantly referring to our faith in derogatory terms such as "Magic Book" etc. falls into all of the above, in my opinion. Repeated slurs on this group of people at DU is unnecessary. We are Democrats too.

[jefferson_dem]

49. It's not my job to show you shit.

You will have to sort out your own hateful insecurities.

But I will call a bigot a bigot, whether it's rooted in racial prejudice, misogyny, homophobia, national origin ... or religion.

Truth is : anti-religious dogmatism is just as nauseating as is religious dogmatism. I deplore them both equally.

[prolesunited]

7. Do you see atheists running around trying to burn holy books?

[jgraz]

8. Or flying planes into skyscrapers and starting two pointless wars?

The time for politeness about this worthless superstition is long past.

[prolesunited]

12. Although I personally don't believe

I certainly don't begrudge others their beliefs -- as long as they aren't trying to impose them on others through public policy or as a pretext for violence.

Your seemingly wanting to impose your nonbelief on others in such an insulting manner is just as bad as the believers wanting to control others' actions. To each their own as long as you respect personal boundaries.

[cleanhippie]

17. "Your seemingly wanting to impose your nonbelief on others..."

Seriously?

WHo is imposing "non-belief" on anyone? Please, do explain.

[jgraz]

18. Impose? No. Convince? Yes.

The ones who wish to impose their beliefs are the ones brainwashing their children with this nonsense. I'd have much less of a problem with religion if it didn't involve this abusive childhood indoctrination.

[dionysus]

26. no, but time and again, some athiests constantly prove they can be just as big a douchebag as any

religious person...

[jgraz]

28. Really, as big a douchebag as Mohammed Atta?

As Timothy McVeigh?

As Scott Roeder?

As Eric Rudolph?



Name one atheist who's as big a douchebag as these murderers.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

31. Various communist dictators leap to mind. N.T.

[jgraz]

32. Riight. If it weren't for Stalin and Mao, you'd be lost.

However, neither Atta nor McVeigh nor Roeder nor Rudolph were heads of state in a military dictatorship. They were just individual human beings, driven crazy by their superstition. Find me an atheist who's done that and you win.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

33. I'm not trying to win, and I'm not "lost". Stop treating DU like a fight. N.T.

You asked a question, and I told you what I thought the answer was.

[jefferson_dem]

50. It's disgusting.

...and should be condemned for what it is... even if anti-religous bigotry is the only brand celebrated as "politically correct" here on DU.

For the record...I'm neither a Christian, Jew, or Muslim.

[golfguru]

47. Nazi's were anti-religion and burned books n/t

[cleanhippie]

9. Would you prefer "mythical book"?

Can you offer some better alternatives?

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

22. If someone tells you you can't burn The Origin of Species, you should burn that too.

Burning the Koran is a lousy way of commenting on its content.

I disagree passionately with most of what is said in the Koran - I think it's far less wicked to burn it than to live by its teachings - but the correct way to attack the content of a book is to buy, read and critique it, not just to burn it.

The reason I think one should burn Koran's is not because I disagree with the content, but because of the threats and intimidation used to prevent people burning it.

[cleanhippie]

25. Agreed, if you want to burn your books, go right ahead.

[Ganja Ninja]

23. Personally I'm against burning it but the reaction is telling isn't it.

A very small group of hate filled assholes deliberately provoking hateful idiots across the Islamic world. Intolerance all around.

Makes me glad I'm an atheist.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. A) No one is saying they can't - at least not yet.

B) Even if they do, this is not protected speech under the Constitution. The burning of Korans serve no other purpose than to threat and intimidate a minority class of Americans who practice Islam. It is no different than cross burning, which is also not considered protected free speech.

C) If these idiots were putting THEMSELVES in harm's way - as your example of the cartoonist illustrated - that'd be one thing. But they're endangering other people who have no choice in this matter. That is wrong no matter which way you choose to say it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

6. I think you're wrong on a large number of counts.

>No-one is saying they can't

Threatening to respond with violence if they do is saying they can't. And there are a large number of countries where Koran-burning is explicitly illegal.


> Even if they do, this is not protected speech under the Constitution.

Yes it is.


> The burning of Korans serve no other purpose than to threat and intimidate a minority class of Americans who practice Islam.

Yes it does. It can serve a great many purposes - for example, defending the right to burn Korans, as I set out above. It specifically is not a threat or an attempt at imtimidation - an attempt at insult, arguably, but not an at intimidation - unless it's coupled with other behaviour to indicate that it is (burning Koran's on somebody's lawn would be intimidation).


> It is no different than cross burning, which is also not considered protected free speech.

The law I suspect you're refering too bans cross burning when used as a specific attempt to intimidate, but the onus is on the state to prove that intent. So cross burning, like burning Korans, is in general protected free speech.



Would you apply the "they're endangering others" standard to e.g. the million man march, which undoubtedly lead to a short-term increase in racist violence against blacks, including those who did not take part?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. The man is the author of a book titled "Islam is the Devil"

He is planning on burning the Korans in direct response to the "mosque" being built near ground zero. I certainly think a very strong case can be made that this is intimidation. And no, there is no indication whatsoever that someone is doing this for the purpose of defending the right to burn Korans. You're way, way off on this and ignoring all of the context of the situation.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. No, I'm not way off, you just didn't read my original post carefully enough.

I didn't say Terry Jones had good reasons for burning Korans. In fact, I said that one of the arguments againt burning Korans for good reasons was that people like Terry Jones would join in.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. Look, if you want to go into your backyard with a few friends and burn a book, no one will care.

But if you want to organize and publicize event in direct response to an action that you don't like by a minority group for the sole purpose of burning their sacred book, this is intimidation and there is no other conclusion to draw. I cannot believe you can't see the difference between the two. Free speech is not absolute.

[Exilednight]

40. I think Donald has it right.............

No one is saying that Jones is doing something that is correct, but it is lawful and protected by free speech - just as is cross burning by racist groups.

Could this be interpreted as intimidation? Mental intimidation to cave on an issue; but no one, at least that I have heard publicly speak in favor, has advocated physical violence as a form of intimidation. when the kook klucks klan burns a cross, it's a form of intimidation, but as long as they don't don't physically act upon that intimidation, then they are well within their rights.

biggoted? yes.
tasteful? no.
intelligent? no.

But it should be protected by law.

[cleanhippie]

14. No, you are way off on this and are ignoring the Constitution

Look, I agree with your sentiment, this guy is a jackass who cannot see the forest for the trees. BUT, it IS his right to do this, regardless of how narrow-minded and bigoted he may be.

[totodeinhere]

24. In the USA we have freedom of religion and we have the right to advocate the idea that

"Islam is the Devil" if we want to. After all, he is advocating a certain theological point of view, and to do that is constitutionally protected. Many fundamentalist Christians sincerely believe that the Devil is real and that he is active. They have right to believe that and to preach that.

[dionysus]

27. well, look at you.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

35. ??? N.T.

[dionysus]

37. i don't know that post replied to you... actually.. so i share your ???

[cleanhippie]

13. It absolutely IS protected speech.

The koran or any other book has no special protection and as long as the copies one wants to burn are the property of the burner, then it most certainly IS protected speech. Cross burning is also very much protected speech. See Virgina v. Black for details.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

19. As I said elsewhere, if you want to burn a cross in your own backyard, you can do that.

If you want to burn a cross on the front lawn of your neighbor, that's a hate crime.

This person, who has written a book declaring Muslims to be "evil", is organizing an event in response to their desire to build a "mosque" (even though it's not really a mosque) in which the sole purpose is to burn the sacred book of these American minorities. This is 100% intimidation - there is no other way to read this. Context means everything.

Virginia v. Black: According to Virgina v Black, the circumstances which can make cross burning illegal go beyond this and include the intent of the speaker to intimidate and terrorize specific and identifiable persons, even if these persons are not in immediate physical danger. http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/limiting-free-speech-29-cross-burning/

[cleanhippie]

21. Or in his own frontyard or his own parking lot or....

anywhere they want to on thier own property. Virgina v. Black requires the STATE to prove intent to intimidate.

In the case of Terry Jones, he is making INFLAMMATORY gestures, for sure, but he is not intimidating anyone, and in fact, its is EVERYONE else who is INTIMIDATING HIM into not following through with his idiotic plan.

Do not get me wrong, I am 100% against what he wants to do, but I am 200% FOR his right to do it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. Yes he is intimidating those who want to build a mosque at ground zero.

This action is in direct response to that. How you cannot see the intimidation involved - ESPECIALLY in light of recent escalation of attacks on Muslims in the NYC area - is totally beyond me.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

34. What do you think he is threatening them with?

I haven't seen any suggestion coming from him that they be treated with violence or similar being reported - have you?

[cleanhippie]

36. Seriously? He didn;t even bring up Park 51 until the repug propaganda machine

tried to equivocate the two. And how is he intimidating ANYONE?

[Little Star]

46. There is a lot of intimidating going on. Not the least of which is

talk of cutting off peoples heads for daring to insult a book. There was enough intimidation in that threat to actually have our president and military both worry about the safety of our soldiers in Afganistan.

[ProSense]

29. An Ugly, But Legal, Form of Free Speech

An Ugly, But Legal, Form of Free Speech

The Dove World Outreach Center plans to commemorate the September 11 terrorist attacks by burning copies of the Quran in a presumably sincere, but woefully misguided, belief that America is at war with the Islamic faith.

Burning books conjures up images of a time when Nazi brutality against a religious minority was state-sanctioned policy. The community will surely respond as suggested by University of Florida President Bernard Machen; by condemning post-9/11 intolerance of Muslims and people of Arab and south Asian descent and reaffirming a commitment to religious and ethnic diversity. Such a reaffirmation is urgently needed at this sad period in American history, when Islamophobia (really, anti-Muslim bigotry) may be becoming mainstream political rhetoric.

The ACLU of Florida encourages its members to stand with others in the community to protect the Muslim community's religious freedom to practice its faith.

It is important that the voices of decency not let the book-burners and taunts of the bigots dominate the conversation — and ensure that the German writer Heinrich Heine's prophesy ("Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.") is not repeated.

But with the guarantee of religious freedom for all, the fundamental American right to protest — an essential element of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression — should also be honored.

As the Constitution protects the right to burn an American flag as a political protest, for the Ku Klux Klan to rally at a state capitol, for neo-Nazis to march down an American street, then surely there is a right to burn a Quran or any other sacred symbol.

<...>

But defending the right of everyone to advance their point of view by whatever nonviolent methods they choose does not mean we should refrain from condemning the objectives of the protest. Bigotry should be condemned for what it is.

more

[woo me with science]

39. K&R. That's a perfect summation.

"I don't want to live in a world where people burn books. But I'd far rather live in one where they do than one where they can't."

Thank you for posting this.

[PurityOfEssence]

41. At the heart of organized religion is a demand for aristocratic privilege

Yes, it's a broad statement, but the conservative mindset typifies most religions: there is no other acceptable worldview, there is no room for questioning, and those of the faith are "better" and "good".

The politically correct tenet that religions are somehow equivalent or all deserving of equal tolerance flies in the face of the obvious: the major religions are NOT broadly similar on the subject of proselytizing, individual rights, coexistence or general fair-play. They simply aren't, and to act as if they are is a disservice to reality itself.

Some of us don't believe that religion or religiousness of the individual is inherently "good", and to voice that opinion is to be derided as a scoundrel of epic proportions. Funny, that: to simply say that those of a particular mindset aren't superior is to be tarred as a bigot. Frankly, those who puff up and claim superiority or expect it for those of professed faiths are the anti-social ones to many of us.

Islam is especially intolerant and domineering, and this comes from someone who has extreme problems with Christianity. At least Christianity has a built-in concept of secularity for government, something that Islam simply does not.

The sad truth is that there is plenty of Koranic justification for the acts of the extremists, and apologists do nobody any favor by glossing this over. Sadly, when the concept is determined to be "good", anything distasteful or destructive is not truly of the faith even when it's expressly called for by the faith.

When somebody insults your worldview, it does not justify violence. Appeasing those who disagree simply feeds the beastliness.

I wish this grandstanding zealot asshole in Florida hadn't come up with this stunt, but he's got the right to do it.

[smalll]

44. Well put!

I basically agree with you. I happen to think there is some good in most religions, including Islam, and that more importantly, sometimes a religion is manifestly a Good Thing at certain periods of history and a Bad Thing at other times. Catholicism, for example, was a great thing for the west in the Dark Ages after the Fall of the Roman Empire. It was a bad thing in the 1500s and 1600s, as it joined in league with absolute monarchy in an attempt to stamp out Protestantism.

Islam was a good thing for Arabia in the 600s when it began -- it provided some order and unity to a patchwork of feuding tribes, as well as law to replace chaos. It's certain not a good thing for the 21st century.

And I really don't understand why so many people throw around the word "bigotry" in the context of opposition to any particular religion: religion, after all, is a system of belief. It is not bigoted to be opposed to a system of belief; it is bigoted to be opposed to people because of their membership in a group. Do I think that Muslims are naturally less good, more violent or more crazy than non-Muslims? Of course not, that would be bigotry. But I do believe that the Muslim religion is less good, more violent and more crazy than any other contemporary major religion one could name.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

45. While I agree with most of that, it's kind of beside the point.

Burning the Koran is an awful way of commenting on its content - the way to do that is to read and attack it. The only good reason to burn it is because people threaten to react violently if you do, not because you disagree with what it says.

[PurityOfEssence]

53. Not really

The point I was attempting to make is one of a disgust with religion's general sanctimonious demand for specialness. Requiring that others unequivocally accept and respect one's spiritual worldview AND respect the organization to which one belongs at threat of violence is not to be tolerated. That's arrogant and selfish to an extreme, and it's doubly bad when the same acceptance isn't given in return.

A spade is a spade is a spade, and I'm tired of being told that the uglinesses in various scriptures aren't there and that the nastinesses promulgated in the name of those faiths are simply the acts of the mentally ill or some kind of pretenders. The very act of faith negates some of the most special traits of the human being: the ability to reason, the willingness to assess things on their merits, the willingness to live in a non-simplistic universe and a REAL sense of humility. By real humility I don't mean the self-subjugating fealty to a supreme being, I mean the simple acceptance that WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS, AND THAT THAT'S NOT A BAD THING.

Please don't take my vehemence as any affront; your thread is a truly honorable one and the kind of thing that should be brought up more often. Sorry if I got sidetracked or didn't express myself as well as I thought I had.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

55. While I think your point is valid, I think it's very important to keep it separate.

I think that burning the Koran is a gesture that can very, very easily be misinterpreted. I would only support doing it if it was made very clear indeed that the reason was to defend the right to do so, rather than as commentary on the content.

I agree with you that there is a great deal wrong with that content, but I think it's very important not to muddle that message in with the other one. If the point you want to make is "there is a great deal of ugliness in these scriptures" then burning them is an awful way to do that; if the point you want to make is "the right to burn these scriptures is important" then talking about how ugly they are diverts attention from your message. Both are reasonable points, but they shouldn't be made together.

[PurityOfEssence]

54. There is some elemental fairness to the universe, after all...

No belief system really endures for any appreciable time unless it's got something going for it. Even dismissing that the major religions derive many of their fables and moral precepts from common history, the fact remains that they're all getting at some rather important building blocks for human coexistence. Killing is bad. Treating others as you would like to be treated is good.

Pretty much any religion or political system (and religions ARE political organizations, lest we forget) play to some basic human needs. The problem is the equating of some good with ALL good.

People use the word "bigotry" as a form of social ostracism of such high an order as to warrant dismissal of the person voicing dissent. It is akin to calling someone a racist or a sexist, and is generally used to clamp down and banish one from the group. This kind of peer pressure is normal human nastiness, and is justified by a feeling of moral superiority to quash certain niggling annoyances that threaten one's safe, cozy worldview.

It's a messy life, and we all have to take care of each other and also be willing to take some criticism ourselves. Those who can brook no dissent are often those who DEMAND a set, pat, clean worldview with no grey areas and no emotional jostling of any sort. That's faith in a nutshell: it's inherently conservative, xenophobic and intolerant, regardless of the sweet and nurturing aspects of the particular faith. It is incumbent upon those of us who truly want a cosmopolitan and accepting world to behave ourselves and be fine ambassadors for a non-aligned way-of-life, but it also means that we should stand up and call crap crap when we see it.

I agree with the assessment of Islam, too, and it bears repeating.

There's a reason why conservatives are more religious than liberals: religion is inherently conservative.

[riderinthestorm]

43. Thanks Donald Ian Rankin. You won't have an easy time of it here with your OP

but it's important to keep saying it. Thanks, and K & R.

[jimmyflint]

48. I only get worried when the government is burning books. n/t

[bkozumplik]

56. I agree with him

Its a book. If the fundie muslims cant take the fact that people disagree with them and want to attack others for it, bring them on. Such violent aggressors need to be dealt with harshly.

Threatening to kill people over burning a book is ridiculous. I'm sorry about what we've done to the middle east, but lets not tiptoe around the fact that their threats are flatly unacceptable, and backward, and barbaric.