On the burning of books ...

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^^ I think you're wrong. And freedom of speech is exactly about that - being able to say that you think that someone else is wrong. I appreciate that you return the insult - I was curious to see how you would react. Now, as far as your argument about book burning is concerned: It's two different things entirely: A) A person purchases a book and then burns it in public B) A person robs a book from another person and then burns it, or even burns all copies of a certain book and then prevents people from aquiring it If you can't see the difference, then I can't help you. And if you think that A can lead to B then - as I said in the beginning, you're wrong. I guess that there are certain people who would like to do B and who would do A instead of B just because a liberal society permits A but not B. But that doesn't mean that A leads to B.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ It's those who choose to be offended by such actions who need to change.

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - September 13 2010 at 10:51

From
http://giveusthisdayourdailydread.blogspot.com/2010/09/top-ten-reasons-terry-jones-postponed.html?zx=95301f5671abb670
After exhorting his followers on his Facebook page to burn a Quran on September 11th, the Reverend Terry Jones of Gainesville, Florida has decided to postpone if not cancel the event. The Rev. Jones cited a deal being reached with the Park51 authorities as the reason why he has suspended the burning of the Muslim holy book yet no one associated with the Park51 project had ever heard of such a deal. What were the top ten real reasons for Rev. Jones to suspend the burning of the Koran?

I have nothing intelligent to add (just posting to help get my thoughts in order for the day).  Watched the video yesterday, but this isn't really in response to that.

While I find the attitude to burning certain books irrational and excessive, I think the action of burning books generally reprehensible.  In the case of the Qur'an, not only is planning to burn them extremely insensitive/ disrespectful to others deeply help convictions/ beliefs (ones that people have been inculcated with), but morally reprehensible in that it may lead to violence (it's very incendiary, literally). It does not send a positive message.  I find it ironic that Terry Jones is the pastor of a church called the Evangelical Dove World Outreach Center. I'm not keen on the Nazi burning of books, or other groups, either. It reeks of destructive mob mentality, and sends a message of hatred. Hatred and intolerance is not something I agree with.  Not by those who burn the books, nor by those who hate those (certainly those who would call on violence as a response) who would do such a thing.

And burning books is not environmentally friendly. Recycle instead.  Not that I think terry Jones should have done it, hardly, but he might have sent quite a message if he had recycled Qur'ans, and then used the recycled paper to create Bibles or his own books (Islam is of the Devil made with recycled Qu'rans).  Salman Rushdie, who had a Fatwa put on him for Satanic Verses, had decried Terry Jones actions.

I'm generally no more against the burning of copies of books as I am burning crosses etc.  The right to incite more hatred/ intolerance and violence is not a freedom that I think should be readily tolerated, and, in a way, all books are sacred to me -- even the trashy ones.  Instead of burning the books, maybe encourage people to read them instead so that they have a better idea of what they are up against. EDIT: Know thy enemy, but in really knowing thy enemy, one may realise that one has much more in common than one thinks (understanding can breed sympathy so not the kind of thing the Terry Joneses of the world would usually encourage). I am against the idea of suppressing knowledge, and stopping people being exposed to other ideas, and that has been a typical trait when it has come to burning books (it does relate to censorship issues for me when one condones such actions).

To be honest, though, we have a very unpopular new tax, and if the government were to give out propaganda books to people called "Life begins with HST: How the HST is making your life better" and there was a book burning, I might consider attending, but I couldn't burn the book.  Too wasteful. Maybe I would put it in the recycling bin eventually (or use it as a toilet paper substitute).  I expect that quite a few must have used a copy of the Bill of Rights to wipe their posteriors.

This Terry Jones incident makes me want to go to church again -- this must have been a hot topic there since the Bishop is very active in the inter-faith movement.

I used to love Terry Jones by the way, but from now on I will boycott Monty Python. ;)

Edited by Logan - September 13 2010 at 12:14

The T wrote: So Ivan, the other way around: are you for a prohibition to burn books? Should the state put you in jail if you dared to burn a book? And who decides which books can and which can't be burned?  Or maybe reasonable people will know that burning books, though allowed because it's just burning paper, it's stupid, and most will not do it (how many book burnings do you see in the US anyway?)

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - September 13 2010 at 12:04

Rabid wrote: So you're prepared to defend the right to free speech, even if it costs innocent peoples lives?

Of course. You have to, or else anyone can threaten violence over any speech they don't like and soon all meaningful speech becomes impossible.

Rabid wrote:  Btw, did you defend the right to fly a plane into the WTC ?

If you honestly believe that there is moral equivalence between mass murder and setting fire to one's own property, I'm not sure what I can say to you.

thellama73 wrote: Rabid wrote: So you're prepared to defend the right to free speech, even if it costs innocent peoples lives?  [/QUOT] Of course. You have to, or else anyone can threaten violence over any speech they don't like and soon all meaningful speech becomes impossible. [QUOTE=Rabid]  Btw, did you defend the right to fly a plane into the WTC ?   If you honestly believe that there is moral equivalence between mass murder and setting fire to one's own property, I'm not sure what I can say to you.

Rabid wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Rabid wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Rabid wrote: I've never seen a Muslim burning a copy of the Christian bible. That's because they have a general respect for it.    Does that mean that Christians don't have a general respect for the Qu'uran?   I wasn't trying to imply that. Before 9/11 I would say that Christians have a  general respect for the Qu'ran. It's hard to tell now. I would still say yes. Catholics certainly do.    You did'nt need to imply it. Your 'Freedom of Speech' has given the opportunity for some pseudo-religous maniac from Florida to imply it for you.

As an aside.  Is it really a freedon of speech issue giving someone the right to burn a book.  Say that was the only copy of the book or even the master copy of some Beatles music and someone wanted to burn it to stop the spread of this awful text or evil music would we then support his right to burn the only copy?

Edited by akamaisondufromage - September 13 2010 at 12:29

akamaisondufromage wrote: As an aside.  Is it really a freedon of speech issue giving someone the right to burn a book.  Say that was the only copy of the book or even the master copy of some Beatles music and someone wanted to burn it to stop the spread of this awful text or evil music would we then support his right to burn the only copy?   Just a thought (A rare occasion these days)

I would be very upset about it, but what right would I have to stop him? It's his property, he can do what he pleases with it.