Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

Original poster

Qur'an burning

62 replies

faeriefruitcake · 01/04/2011 22:16

That bigot went ahead and burnt a Qur'an. I hope Jesus revokes his license and books him a trip to a lake of fire.

Which is the politist thing I can think to write about now. The world is full of turmoil and pain and he just threw a whole lot of petrol on the fire.

OP posts:
belledechocchipcookie · 01/04/2011 22:21

Very sad, as a result 5 members of the UN based in Afghanistan were killed, 2 were beheaded. He has their blood on his hands.

Snorbs · 01/04/2011 22:40

The only people who have blood on their hands are the people who committed murder over the mistreatment of a sodding book.

Yes, buring the Qur'an was a deliberately provocative and desperately childish thing to do. But it takes a very special class of utter scary nutjob to be capable of killing another human being - someone with no connection with the person who burnt the book, remember - in "retaliation" for such a pathetic stunt.

belledechocchipcookie · 01/04/2011 22:44

It's just terrible, all of it.

Original poster
faeriefruitcake · 01/04/2011 22:57

Snorbs I agree but he's adding fuel to the fire, bigots on both sides use the holy books to justify their ideology.

Consider if you will the millions who have died becuase of how various Churches have interpreted the Bible as one example. Or even the dropping of the Atom Bomb because scientists believed it could end a war.

The things we do in the name of our beliefs.

OP posts:
thejaffacakesareonme · 02/04/2011 11:26

I'm afraid I don't see how that is relevant to the burning of the Qur'an. WW2 was not a war over religion, unless you count Hitler's nazi ideologies to have been religious. In fact, many Christians in Germany tried to stand up to Hitler and paid for their faith with their lives.

In relation to Japan, yes, many innocent people were killed by the atomic bombs, but so were many innocent people killed by the actions of the Japanese in the far east. Again, the war in the far east was not over religion, but politics.

I'm not justifying the actions of the American preacher. I think they were very foolhardy.

MrsSnow · 02/04/2011 14:07

Snorbs, it may be a 'sodding' book as you put it, but like it or not, Islam is a way of life and the Qur'an is the manual. The preachers in Florida knew exactly what they were doing. If they expected no reaction they why film it? Why put it on Youtube? They didn't hold a private event for no one to see/film because they wanted a reaction.

Nothing justifies killing people.

The Afghanis are not 'normal' people living in a normal society. Tensions are very high at the best of times over there. Watching videos of something which inflames them is obviously going to cause reactions. A lot of the Afghan population have been through horrible things all of which are going to affect the way that they react to things.

ElBurroSinNombre · 02/04/2011 20:33

It was not that long ago that UK muslims were burning the Satanic Verses and putting a fatwa on Samlan Rushdie in the name of their religion. Personally, I found that attck on our hard fought freedoms very offensive but as a result I did not round up a lynch mob and go and kill some easy targets who happened to be nearby. Clearly the sole responsibility for the bloodshed lies in the hands of the perpertrateurs, doubtless manipulated by those amongst them who have a fundamentalist agenda.
Having said that, the burning of the Koran was an infantile, stupid, attention seeking act - and this Jones guy is clearly getting off on it. It really shows what mass communications has done for our world - some nutter in the US can have an effect on the residents of a country that he has never been to and has no understanding of. However, I do believe that the global communications network we now have will eventually lead to a better understanding between different sections of the human race because of the opportunities it gives vastly differing people to communicate. Am I naive?

Ripeberry · 02/04/2011 20:42

Just proves the Muslims (some of them) don't care about other human beings if they don't believe in THEIR religion. Angry

Ripeberry · 02/04/2011 20:43

Why KILL people, why not just burn the Bible? Religion should be banned, causes lots of hate in the world.

onagar · 02/04/2011 20:56

I wouldn't have been so rude as to burn it (though as an atheist I find Christianity and Islam offensive), but I'm with Snorbs on that one. The murders were not committed by the book burner.

You know every time we criticise something done in another country we risk the same kind of retaliation. We can't let the threat change what we say or do.

MaryBS · 02/04/2011 21:15

The murders weren't committed by the book burner no, but there is such a thing as incitement to hatred, and in my book, this is as much his fault as if he'd handed them the murder weapon. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Original poster
faeriefruitcake · 02/04/2011 23:18

Jaafacakes some of the Christians of Germany, particularly Dietrich Bonhoffer and the confessing Church did stand up to Hitler. That's not what I meant. I was refering to the 2000 years of persecution that groups, particularly Jews and women have had under the teaching of the Churches.

What people will do to justify their hatred, which piece of text taken out of context, or even in the name of science or politics is what I was talking about. The war in the east wasn't a religious one, but what beliefs motivated those politicians and scientists to drop the A bomb.

What this man did was more than book burning. To millions this book is the actual word of God, whether you share their beliefs or not you have to take that into the equation. Snorbs was tight to point out that nobody should have reacted violently, but we sit in safety with our education behind us in a secular society and forget the uncomfortable reality of war.

OP posts:
colditz · 02/04/2011 23:25

I do hope that when these religious extremist people get to whatever their idea of the afterlife is, their deity of choice is standing there with his big red book, and fixes them with a steely glare...

... and says "Just what the bloody fuck did you think you were doing???? I GAVE you a BRAIN! I gave you reasoning, i gave you a conscience - and I very clearly said that you are not allowed to kill anyone! Are you wrong in the head???"

onagar · 03/04/2011 09:03

Not sure what this had to do with 'the reality of war'. Someone burned a book and some sick fucks had a tantrum and committed some murders. Lots of sick fucks in the world and they tend to sign up with one religion or another because religion says it is okay.

Dropping the A bomb was different as it had a purpose in stopping the war. Which it did as far as I know.

Himalaya · 03/04/2011 10:59

Whatever you think of the Pastor, burning a book is no more incitement for murder than wearing a short skirt is incitement for rape.

Someone burns some paper. Some other people commit murder. "two wrongs don't make a right" seriously, MaryBS?!? Shock

MaryBS · 03/04/2011 11:19

Yes seriously, and the pastor knew what effect it would have - hence incitement to murder. Burning the Oxford English Dictionary wouldn't have the same effect. Your analogy doesn't match. Like you say, wearing a short skirt isn't incitement to rape, no sane thinking person would ever suggest it was!

onagar · 03/04/2011 11:29

MaryBS, if someone is so offended by your remarks in this thread that they kill someone will you take responsibility for the murder?

You willl claim it's not likely but you also claim that "wearing a short skirt isn't incitement to rape" ? you may not know that it's been used as justification in rape cases.

Himalaya · 03/04/2011 11:30

So did Salman Rushdie incite the Fatwa against himself?

MaryBS · 03/04/2011 11:39

I do know that its been used, which is why I said about sane thinkers. If I posted something on here, that I knew 100% would incite someone to go and kill someone else, and knowing that, still posted it, yes I would consider myself guilty. Particularly, as in the Terry Jones case, there was no sane reason for my provocation, other than to incite hatred. Why do it otherwise? Do YOU think he should have done?

If Salman Rushdie only published his book to incite hatred (which I don't think he did), then it would apply to him.

MaryBS · 03/04/2011 11:44

I'd also like to state "for the record" I don't think what Terry Jones did is justification for those murdering scum to do what they did. Only that if he HADN'T done it, those people would still be alive today.

MaryBS · 03/04/2011 11:44

probably...

fuzzywuzzy · 03/04/2011 12:19

Ripeberry- Muslims wouldnt burn the bible, nor would they say anything blasphemous about Jesus, we revere him as a Prophet, and the original bible to be a revelation from God.

Himalaya · 03/04/2011 16:00

MaryBS -

It doesn't matter if we think Terry Jones is a nasty piece of work, freedom of speech allows people to be nasty and provocative. There are two exceptions:

  • inciting hatred - as in when Radio Rwanda told Hutus to 'kill the cockroaches'.
  • putting lives at risk - as in falsely shouting out fire in a crowded cinema

What he did was not incitement to hatred. He did not incite people in Afganistan to murder UN workers (or more generally muslims to kill non muslims) what he did was to criticise the Koran and illustrate that with a bit of street theatre.

I am not sure what you mean about Salman Rushdie - the hatred incited was against him? How could he possibly have incited hatred of himself?

It could be argued that it was irresponsible - as in shouting fire in a crowded theatre. But then theatres should have enough health and safety provision that if someone shouts fire it doesn't cause a stampede leading to people's death.

The problem is that islamic extremists would like to make the whole world into a 'crowded theatre' where freedom of speech is curtailed for fear that someone will take offense and get murderous.

In between the video being put up on the internet, and the riot that led to murders, were TV stations and Imams who publicised it, and used it to agitate people rather than late it remain another obscure you tube video. What if next week they take an academic study also criticising the Koran on the same basis as Jones, but without the street theatre? What if they use that to incite hatred and violence? Would you be saying that the only responsible thing to do would be to stop publishing academic analysis of the Koran?

bemybebe · 03/04/2011 16:22

Himalaya - I agree with you.

Today all day Sky is showing General Petraeus condemning TJ bloke. I understand why he does it, he has his own agenda to fulfill in Afghanistan. Where are the Islamists condemning the murderers of the innocent people and Imams who were whipping up the crowd by publicizing the Koran burning event?

expatinscotland · 03/04/2011 16:44

'Like you say, wearing a short skirt isn't incitement to rape, no sane thinking person would ever suggest it was!'

No sane, thinking person goes and murders people they don't even know because of the actions of someone else they don't know thousands of miles away.

Same thing happened with that Danish fellow and his cartoon - many people killed in the Middle East during demonstrations over this cartoon. Oh, and Theo van Gough being murdered over a documentary he made with a Muslim Somali woman, who still has to fear for her life after speaking out about mistreatment of women there.

What Snorbs and Himilaya said.