The “Burn a Quran Day” celebration planned by Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida continues to generate press. Now General David Patreaus has gotten into the fray:
The U.S. commander in Afghanistan on Monday criticized a Florida church’s plan to burn copies of the Quran on September 11, warning the demonstration “could cause significant problems” for American troops overseas.
“It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort in Afghanistan,”
With all due respect to the General, I think drawing attention to Terry Jones and his ministry only compounds the problem. The actions of a small church in Florida, which had less than 50 members before this mess started, are hardly newsworthy. Like Westboro Baptist, this church seems to want to profit by creating a media storm.
Sadly, the General is not in the habit of consulting with anonymous atheist bloggers before issuing a press release (… the fool). So we do what we can. For example, we point and laugh:
(via)
This was known world wide before the general made his comment. This story spread due to the already existing controversy over the ground zero mosque.
You can bet that al Qaeda and al Jazeera made sure all Muslims are aware of what this ignorant pastor and his tiny church are doing.
Burning books is so medieval, darling. I shall download the koran from Amazon and then delete it.
I´m going to download a copy onto my Amazon Kindle and burn that.
if you die, make sure the story gets posted on the internet. if it was just in a regular paper, no one would read it.
You may not get in trouble with al-qaide but the RIAA will get you.
That’s kinda funny.
Just the Quran?….please include the Bible!
I am going to make a few copies of my e-sword bible on disks and burn them on that day to commensurete with their stupidity if I remember.
I read an article in the paper about mass prayers soldiers in Afghanistan were/are doing before going on patrol, and how they have bible references tattooed on them. While burn-a-koran day isn’t helping things, it’s only a small drop in the bucket of “America is in a holy war with muslims.”
Here’s a really stupid and wrong interpretation of the situation:
US religious leaders condemn Islamophobia
Now he can say whatever he wants about it being rude, insulting, destabilizing, dishonorable, etc., but one thing it most certainly is not is a violation of the first amendment, given here in its entirely:
You can see that the first amendment only places limits on the actions of the government, i.e. Congress, not on the actions of some inbred yahoo preacher in Florida.
placing a limit on the actions of the yahoo preacher in Florida would surely be seen as abridging the yahoo’s freedom of speech.
Once again, I am happy to live in a country which takes away your free speach if you use it to incite racial hatred. Sorry, but your “right” to free speach is not as important as other people’s “right” not to get beaten and murdered because some whackaloon has whipped a bunch of morons up into a xenophobic frenzy.
The right of free speech is Equally as important as other people’s right not to get beaten and murdered.
But not the right to abuse free speach to cause others to be beaten and killed.
If the words alone coming from my mouth beats you up then you might have a point.
You know it’s not about this narrow point, or am I saying that?
Nope, sorry, I disagree. “Human rights” are based entirely on the premise that we each acknowledge that every other person is as much of an individual human being as we ourselves are. Those things that are “rights” are founded entirely on those things which are fundamental human needs – we all have a right to not have our life endangered, for example, but we don’t have a “right” to be pain free (because pain is a prerequisite part of being human, and a useful one at that). This man has no right to do what he is doing (because spouting racist invective is not a fundamental human need), but the people who could easily be murdered as a result of his words and deeds have a right to life (i.e. to not get murdered by xenophobes and reactionaries).
The right to say what you want does not fill a human need. Great.
It actually takes quite a bit of effort and intent to “whip up some morons into a xenophobic frenzy”, and in most places, speech incident to actual rioting is not protected speech. But inciting a riot is a loooooooooong way from merely offensive, expressive speech; you seem to be conflating the two, or arguing that the (nearly non-existent) risk of the second leading to the first is justification to restrain it.
As a critic of Islam, would you feel comfortable with a regime that muzzled you for merely saying denigrating things about Islam?
But I thought she’s talking about inciting racial hatred using free speech as a tool.
Not if those things were based in fact and the only risk was to myself, but that’s a long way from burning the Q’ran for no purpose other than to offend and so risk collective retribution.
This is one of those strange articles of faith which I find a little disconcerting in Americans; that we each have a “right” to say what we like about who we like without consequence. I find it extremely distasteful, personally, certainly up there with flag-worship and unquestioning belief that the constitution is perfect, irredactible and should be obeyed unquestioningly and never be altered.
It’s not “without consequence.” People’s words have consequences. If you insult someone that may have negative consequences in many aspects of your life. That doesn’t mean the government can or should take away your right to insult people.
Not if those things were based in fact and the only risk was to myself, but that’s a long way from burning the Q’ran for no purpose other than to offend and so risk collective retribution.
Submitting comments to a factual basis test is a road you really don’t want to go down, but beyond that, how can *you* say that his intent is nothing but offense? I recall him understanding the purpose of the act differently.
“This is one of those strange articles of faith which I find a little disconcerting in Americans; that we each have a “right” to say what we like about who we like without consequence. I find it extremely distasteful, personally, certainly up there with flag-worship and unquestioning belief that the constitution is perfect, irredactible and should be obeyed unquestioningly and never be altered.”
+1
No, you should have the right to say whatever you want, even racist insults and such. Society and your fellow man should afterwards have the right to condemn you and take punitive action if you’ve stepped over the established legal line.
However, the proper solution is to do this after someone expresses their opinion, not before, as this constitutes censorship which has no place in a legitimate democracy.
True free speach may come at a price, but the alternative is worse.
“However, the proper solution is to do this after someone expresses their opinion, not before, as this constitutes censorship which has no place in a legitimate democracy.”
… so you’re saying censorhip should has no place in a legitimate democracy. Well that’s the UK legal system screwed then as it relies on censorship to achieve a fair trial.
“True free speach may come at a price, but the alternative is worse.”
… and what is the alternative that is much worse? Sorry trj but this sounds like the sort of stuff that the likes of Glenn Beck would say i.e. alluding to something bad without expressing just what that thing is.
@Jabster:
> “Well that’s the UK legal system screwed then as it relies on censorship to achieve a fair trial.”
How so? Are you refering to closed doors trial hearings? If so, this is censorship of criminal evidence or protection of participants. This is altogether different from censorship of expression.
> “… and what is the alternative that is much worse? Sorry trj but this sounds like the sort of stuff that the likes of Glenn Beck would say i.e. alluding to something bad without expressing just what that thing is.”
Well, I suppose it wasn’t clear, but the alternative I was alluding to was the censorship I mentioned in the previous paragraph.
With the risk of sounding all melodramatic, I believe censorship is a creeping rot on democracy. It is a catering to peoples’ sensibilities and their ideas of what is “proper” – which is something we should always be allowed to question, rather than having such opposition censored.
This should be the case even when your free expression assumes a dickish behavior, such as Quran burnings or flag burnings. To be more specific, we should always be allowed to attack ideas (such as religion) without legal consequences (and book burning falls into this category), while attacking peoples’ race should be punishable – after you have made a racist statement.
Speaking of the UK, your libel laws are a case in point of why censorship is a bad idea. The law allows homeopathic crackpots and commercial interests to censor the opposition, independent of factual evidence, purely as matter of the plaintiff claiming his integrity is hurt. It’s an undue protection of feelings and claims which should be allowed to be tested on their merits but which are being protected from scrutiny by the judicial system. That is censorship, and it is to be avoided.
@trj
I suppose you first point is why I don’t like blanket statements of censorship is always bad when even in a democracy there is a place for censorship and trials are one place. For some of the other points, there is a difference between attacking someones ideas and inciting violence against a group who hold those ideas, whether it’s religious or racial. In terms of racial attacks always being off limits, even this is difficult as where does one draw the line between race and culture? I think we both agree that censorship is in principle bad so what we are really arguing about is what forms of censorship should be allowed i.e. where does freedom of expression override someones, for want of a better phrase, human rights.
Oh and as for UK libel laws – yep they suck and hopeful will be changed but our laws concerning incitement to racial or religious hatred have worked well so far and the fear that they could be used to protect peoples feeling having occurred.
“… that they could be used to protect peoples feeling having occurred”
should be “that they could be used to protect peoples feeling haven’t occurred”
It’s like if the Power Thirst guys got all political! :D
Blasphemy International Day
September 30, 2010
I wish I lived close by. I would try to get a ‘burn a bible, and a copy of the God Delusion’ counter protest. Hell, burn the Bagvadhgita while were at it. No ideas should be protected. As much as I think this guy is a complete idiot, I also support his right to burn Korans.
I have watched the news today and I find the whole thing shattering my irony meter.
On the news you have all these xtians, jews, IsLame-icks going on and on about how blasphemous and disrespectful this is and that ‘you should do what is right and respect others’.
Talk about HIPPO-crazy!!!! (HIPPO-crazy is hypocrisy so big it stand out like a giant crazy Hippo)
These same arse-holes will stand there and say that all the others are going to hell, demean, women, blame women for all of man’s ills, stone gays, and wish all atheist dead and in hell; but we are to have respect for others.
Not one of these holey-er then thou asses never once said the theostard IsLame-icks were over reacting to just some paper being burnt! Not one said calm down and stop being so pissy!
They are all coming down on the idiot preacher and giving Islam a blow job!
My belief is they are ALL scared spit-less of the IsLames.
Damn right I’m scared of the “IsLames!” I’m also scared of the fundies, but most of the fundies don’t have guns and bombs which they’re willing to use not only on the enemy, but there own. My biggest fear is that this will spark a coalescence of the Islamic people behind an extremeist leader and set off another bloody “jihad” that will scorch significant portions of the Earth. Is this the staw that breaks the back and begins WWIII? There is no doubt that we are teetering on that precipice. Remeber that WWI was sparked by the assasination of one man.
Do yourself a favour and find out how many terrorist attcks there have been on the USA – and then find out how many of them were by non-Christians / foreigners versus Christians / US nationals.
You might be shocked.
Sadly enough this is only the first signs of a series that will hurt the Muslim community in the US very badly. Building the mosque that close to ground zero is a very bad idea. It is going to trigger on both extremist sides a series of events so that the building of peace will become symbol of bloodshed and the start of a which-hunt against Muslims.
I do not like the guy about book burning but he has the right for free speech.
The US is starting to get the same problems as Europe has now.
This church and its pastor, as wrongheaded as they are, did not create the media storm. Any storm should be laid at the feet of the media themselves and this blog is just another piece of that. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is present has any sound been made?
Well, the history of this church is a bit more than this one incident. As a Gainesville resident, I can say these folks have been in the news for at least the past year and a half, starting with their “Islam is of the Debbil” t-shirt and sign crap. It was locally newsworthy because kids started showing up to school with these shirts and schools had to come up with policies to deal with it.
Clearly, Jones is a bit of a evangelical grifter (his connections between his church in Germany and his furniture store lend credence to that title. Here he seems to figured he latched onto something so is stoking the flames to stay in the news and get the attention (and maybe more money for his “church”). In fact, I think his church has been dwindling and he has some serious tax issues (its always about money with these clowns).
Anyway, always expect the media to play into hyping and fear-mongering. That’s all they ever really do. But coming this game-day (sat 9/11), you can bet federal and local law will have to be all over this town because of this fool.
My uncle lives in Ocala and knows all about this idiot because of the T-shirt issue a while back. He sent me a local news article.
Considering how viral everything goes these days when it hits the internet, I’m not one bit surprised if Jones didn’t instigate it online himself.
Maybe Muslims should use the Comi con trick.
Start to burn bibles right next to the Quoran burning Christians peacefully.
Or barcecue chicken wings over the fire peacefully and praising their quran god because of the stupidities of these christians. That would drive those christian mad.
Christians should realize:
You aren’t responsible for Quran burners. Don’t hold Muslims responsible for 9/11.
By William Saletan
I’m thinking that here in Canada he would’ve been arrested already, to prevent him from committing a hate crime.
I would send the army there to stop him.
Seriously? You would send military forces to stop a citizen from burning a book?
Yes, the repercussions for troops–not only American–in the Middle-East can be huge.
Glad to have sparked a discussion. I don’t mind when people disagree.
Glad to have sparked a discussion. I don’t mind when people disagree.
Such conversations are the spice of life. :)
Yes, the repercussions for troops–not only American–in the Middle-East can be huge.
I don’t believe that apprehension about how others will react should govern how one behaves, especially when it comes to international politics; walking on eggshells is a fact track to nowhere. There are lots of things we do that piss off people around the globe, chief among them having our troops in their country in the first place, and if anything this is where the criticism should be leveled for putting people in harm’s way.
“Yes, the repercussions for troops–not only American–in the Middle-East can be huge.”
This argument is weak. (Whether put forth by a General or a citizen.)
1. Any danger to those troops stems from the fact that our government has dropped them in the middle of a hostile country. Any added danger from a bunch of inbred yahoos in Florida burning books is minimal compared to the risk caused by the fact that we are an invading force.
2. Even with an increase in risk to troops, free speech rights – particularly as it relates to political speech – outweigh it.
This argument strikes me as similar to the old “if you protest the war you are causing harm to the troops.” In the words of the country I’ve been visiiting for a few weeks – it’s bollocks. The mere fact that our troops are deployed abroad is not a reason to censor people back home.
I think book bruning is a terrible idea for many reasons. I think the Florida group are idiots. But if they want to burn a book of fairly tales – have at it. In the end it says more about them then it does about the books they are burning.
Yep, that’s another advantage of allowing everybody, including the extremists, to express themselves – it allows the world to get a glimpse of just how stupid and repugnant they really are, rather than giving them the opportunity to establish an image as victims of societal oppression.
I’m not sure if that would be considered a hate crime, but then again, the labeling of certain crimes as “hate crimes” hasn’t exactly been an accurate system.
“You two are different colours and you had a fight? HATE CRIME (worse than regular crime!)”
Well to be fair to the concept of “hate crime”, it’s not that the act is made worse somehow because the perpetrator and the victim were different races/creeds/sexual orientations, but rather in certain circumstances, committing a violent crime is in fact committing two separate crimes; one against the proximate victim, and another against the group that they belong to that motivated the attack. The difference between murder and lynching is that while both involve the death of a person, only the second has the additional effect of terrorizing the group that the person lynched belongs to.
So, I understand how a person might reasonably come to support definition and prosecution of “hate crimes” so long as it is done narrowly and carefully. But that is an entirely different animal than so-called “hate speech”. The difference is clear even in the reaction. Hate crimes are crimes because they cause terror. In contrast, hate speech (generally speaking) just pisses people off, which is not something reasonably forbidden in a free society.
Thank you for the distinction between “hate speech” and “hate crimes”, the separation makes things a bit clearer.
“so long as it is done narrowly and carefully.”
This is pretty much the only reason I have a problem with the label at all. Hate crimes are a problem and those who do them should be punished accordingly, but I’ve read and heard (tv news) about a few cases where the crime was labeled as a hate crime in spite of the fact that colour was the only determining factor (or at least that is how I perceived it). I should probably try and find that case again.
Anywho, now with that distinction (jumping back to hate crime and speech) I’m pretty confident that the Canadian Government would not impede this nut-job anymore than the US is right now. I’ve heard of other times when a person with strong views has decided to do some public speaking and usually the only thing (if any) that impedes them is protesters.
Pingback: Saturday! Saturday! Saturday! « JaggerMafia.com Home
The Xtians has always been saying that they, and only they, are following the one and true God. The Muslims, Hindus etc are following a false God and are destine to hell. So given that this is the prerequisite thinking in becoming a Xtian, from the the Xtian stand point, what is wrong with burning a book written by a false God?
I, for one, would love to see this triggers some kind of religious war between the backwards Islamists and the not-much-more-advanced fundie Xtians. The Xtians will fire bomb the mosques and the islamists will suicide bomb churches. Seems like killing two birds with one bomb, punt intented. As an atheist, I won’t be anywhere near a church or a mosque, so bombs away.. HAHA!
Unfortunately these guys take their example from a god who never went for the surgical strike alternative when wiping a few millions innocent bystanders is an option. Now, if there was a way to put them all into a cage and have them go at each other on pay-per-view you may have had something.
I think the argument that Muslims are outraged at the United States primarily because of anti-Islamic media circuses like this one is…suspect. There is anger in the world because the United States and its blessed troops are raining death down on several countries in the Islamic world. The two million + displaced or the future thousands whose lives will be ruined by the depleted uranium dust from/by the American invasion of Iraq could care less about this wackaloon pastor.
Let us not Discriminate, let’s burn all of the mind numbing religious books. What a Glorious fire that would be!!!!!
It might even help if we threw most of the ‘MONEY GRUBBING’ preachers into the fire!
I agree with Dark Matter and Elmenope. I too am glad I live in a country where the police or government would put a stop to such a thing before it even happened.
Hm, I suppose you have the government you deserve, then.
I agree with Dark Matter and Elmenope. I too am glad I live in a country where the police or government would put a stop to such a thing before it even happened.
Er, if the second sentence is anything to go by, you *disagree* with me. :)
Yeah.
I was scritching my head about that one too.
It took much longer then expected but the Iranian government has managed to discover that it’s the Zionists who are behind the Koran burning.
The burning is off:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100909/ap_on_re_us/quran_burning
What? I don’t see that. Where does it say that?
BBC has it too. Pastor is lying out of his ass to save face about it, but that’s better than sparking a terrorist retaliation.
This imbecile American who burned pages from the Koran at the WTC is such a scuzzbucket. I trust Moslems know that he does not characterize Americans, but I recognize that their emotions will be awfully harmed by his insulting actions.