Man gets scentenced to 70 days in prison for burning a Koran

[BRAWL]

Originally Posted by AcidJiles

But why should the religious have a specialist layer of law for them. Hate comes in many forms not just of religion. I don't think there should be crimes in that form but if there are they need to be equally applied to all things that people take offence too which is the issue with trying to define what people take offence to in the beginning.

If the religious ones want to act like children and throw stones at each other. They should have laws for them... they want to act like children, let them be treated like children, when they spit the dummy out we can all go "Going to be grown up and just get on with your lives now?"

[Comrade Woody]

Originally Posted by stonedsurd

I like you Woody.

That's why I'm going to kill you last.

Hahahaha

Originally Posted by GeorgeStorm

I wouldn't consider someone coming up to me and just mocking my religion as abuse to be fair.
It would have to be fair more provocative than that.
Although I'm slightly confused, you reacted to what they said? Even though you disagree with me reacting? I never said I'd cave their head in merely that I wouldn't just sit there as though nothing was happening.

I never meant that people should be mute in the face of confrontation. The reactions I'm saying are wrong are the extreme reactions like violence or legislation that strips people's rights. It would have been wrong of me to punch the guy who swore at me in the street, but many people would see doing so as justified under the circumstances. If the issue was something more extreme than a political slogan and a personal slur (take common examples such as aggressive comments based on race or sexual orientation) then many people would argue that the man should not be allowed to have said it in the first place.

[Nexxo]

Originally Posted by specofdust

You say this every time, and I just feel like you're ignoring the issue. You're not picking a side here, you're simply saying that people shouldn't burn religious books or whatever. We need to decide as a society how we're going to react if someone does though. You know as well as I that there is no way we can rely upon individual wisdom to maintain our society.

I'm all for freedom of expression, the primary advantage being that people will make themselves look like assholes all of their own accord. Want to burn a book? Go for it; be an asshole. Want to burn a book knowing that the Middle East will go into meltdown and innocents will get killed by other assholes? Go ahead, be a destructive asshole. It's your right, no?

It is other people's right, of course, to start questioning whether freedom of expression is such a good thing, and whether everybody should enjoy it, because, you know, some assholes just don't seem to be able to handle the privilege. Come to think of it, perhaps people should not dress any way they want either, just look at those young girls with their tits hanging out and those guys with their jeans practically around their ankles. Perhaps we should take a long hard look at what we show our kids on TV these days. And the internet? Don't get me started.

Nothing damages freedom of expression as much as an asshole abusing the privilege. With freedom and power comes responsibility. If we cannot rely on individual wisdom to maintain our society, then why should we allow individuals free expression?

[Threefiguremini]

This is a really good video, it's long but worth it.



Good quote from it if you don't watch it "You don't have the right to not be offended". This guy can burn books if he wants (he should buy them first though) and people can be offended if they want. But they can't really stop him and they can't impose their beliefs on him.

There are a whole load of videos on youtube of people burning the Koran (this being the digital age they're mostly burning cd's with the Koran burned on them). The videos are a way of standing up to Islamist extremists (along with Draw Mohammed Day).

[Nexxo]

Sooo... burning the poppy is wrong and outrageous, burning the Koran is freedom of expression? Double standards much?

Are they standing up to Islamist extremists or are they just acting like assholes? They burn a poppy, we burn a Koran. They burn an effigy of the US President, we draw a cartoon of Mohammed. Rinse, repeat: anything you can do I can do better... Yeah, real mature.

If you want to have the moral high ground on freedom of expression, show them how it's done right.

[Threefiguremini]

Umm well I've not said anything about the poppy, but yeah they can burn a poppy if they want.

I think that allowing free expression wherever it takes us is the moral high ground.

I also think that things like draw mohammed day is a way of attacking extremism. If thousands of people do it no one can be singled out and threatened like that Danish (was she Danish?) cartoonist that had to go into hiding. But we still put across the point that yes you can be offended if you want but it wont stop us. Your belief system does not apply to us and neither do you religious laws. You will not threaten us. We will express ourselves as we want to.

It's not about retribution (I don't agree with what this guy did) it's about freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

[leveller]

Originally Posted by Threefiguremini

There are a whole load of videos on youtube of people burning the Koran (this being the digital age they're mostly burning cd's with the Koran burned on them). The videos are a way of standing up to Islamist extremists (along with Draw Mohammed Day).

Standing up against Islamist extremists by burning their Koran and having a draw Mohammed day? Genius that is. Genius.

[AcidJiles]

May have been quoted already:"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," Voltaire.

I would much rather be offened everyday than never be offened ever.

[adidan]

Originally Posted by leveller

Standing up against Islamist extremists by burning their Koran

'Islamic extremists' read from a different book. They're just extremists.

[Comrade Woody]

Originally Posted by AcidJiles

May have been quoted already:"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," Voltaire.

It has. It wasn't Voltaire though, it was Evelyn Beatrice Hall in her book The Friends of Voltaire.

[boiled_elephant]

I think there's a lot of confusion in this thread, still, and the original article is really damn vague. I'd like to know exactly what he was described to be going to prison for. As a couple of people have said, I don't think it's got anything to do with the fact that it was a Qur'an - more to do with his intentions, what he was attempting to do.

The law is heavily intentionalist, after all. If you burn a book to draw attention to an unjust law that arbitrarily prevents you from doing so, to make a political statement or to draw attention to a topic that nobody dares draw attention to (like Gandhi's burning of the passes in South Africa, if anyone's seen that film), then it's a valid gesture. If, on the other hand, you burn a book specifically to upset and anger people to violence, knowing that it'll very likely do this, all you're really doing is starting a fight. You might not be throwing the first punch, but you're starting a fight. I think it's valid to reason from that that it's an act of violence.

So it hinges on what his intentions were, and whether the judge interpreted them accurately. The OP article is a bit vague on this.

[RichCreedy]

didn't 7 un workers die in afganistan, in revenge for the koran being burn't in florida?

[TheUn4seen]

World would be so much better without religious assholes, their naive books, wishful thinking and "offended feelings". Personal freedom is limited by the freedom of others, but most religious nuts seem to think they have exclusivity on being offended by anyone who dares to exercise his own right for personal freedom. I was in UK a few months ago, kissed my gf on a street in Nottingham and almost got a knife between my ribs because some islamists felt offended. Frankly, I felt a little offended myself, but I won't say "burn them all, not just their book" just because I respect their freedom.

[Pieface]

Originally Posted by TheUn4seen

World would be so much better without religious assholes, their naive books, wishful thinking and "offended feelings". Personal freedom is limited by the freedom of others, but most religious nuts seem to think they have exclusivity on being offended by anyone who dares to exercise his own right for personal freedom. I was in UK a few months ago, kissed my gf on a street in Nottingham and almost got a knife between my ribs because some islamists felt offended. Frankly, I felt a little offended myself, but I won't say "burn them all, not just their book" just because I respect their freedom.

No, you almost got stabbed in the ribs because you were in Nottingham. Surprised it wasn't a gun pointed at your ribs though.

[boiled_elephant]

Originally Posted by TheUn4seen

World would be so much better without religious assholes, their naive books, wishful thinking and "offended feelings"

I don't know how this fallacious association is still even considered, because it's been debunked in this forum a million times before. But I'll say it again: there is no correlation between being a violent nut job and being religious. None.

No really, there isn't. Between the totally peaceful, law-abiding religious followers and the violent, psychotic secular nut jobs, there is just no correlation. Count the heads. Some of the crazies happen to be religious, some aren't; the ones who are express their craziness in religious terms. End of.

And if you want to make a "world better without religion" argument, you've got to tell it to the billions of people all over the world whose lives have been given direction, meaning and happiness by religion.

[Nexxo]

^ QFT.

[AcidJiles]

Originally Posted by boiled_elephant

I don't know how this fallacious association is still even considered, because it's been debunked in this forum a million times before. But I'll say it again: there is no correlation between being a violent nut job and being religious. None.

No really, there isn't. Between the totally peaceful, law-abiding religious followers and the violent, psychotic secular nut jobs, there is just no correlation. Count the heads. Some of the crazies happen to be religious, some aren't; the ones who are express their craziness in religious terms. End of.

And if you want to make a "world better without religion" argument, you've got to tell it to the billions of people all over the world whose lives have been given direction, meaning and happiness by religion.

I have several issues with what you claim here. Yes violent people exist outside religion and bad things will still happen when religion is gone. However religion has the capacity to make good people do bad things in a way being agnostic or atheist never will (Don’t even trying bringing up Russia please it was not truly atheist, the state became the religion which is just as bad). There is a great quote on this I'm struggling to recollect. Religion gives people a set of guidelines that enables them to do things they wouldn’t normally do in the name of their religion. Religion doesn’t create violent nut-jobs per say but it does allow good people to do bad things because they have faith. You’re using extreme examples, the majority of people in Islamic countries are good people who care etc etc yet in many countries they are for the stoning of adulterers, the barbaric removal of body parts for crimes and various other punishments the Koran and other holy books extol. There are no more crazy people as you put it inside Islam than we have in the UK or any other country on average. Religion as a means of control is the same as any other dangerous social manipulator like communism or fascism within countries.

These billions you speak of the majority are in poor countries and while I don’t deny some short term comfort or otherwise can be provided by religion it does not solve their basic needs. Religion holds these countries back by stopping measures towards social progress and stifling real cultural advancement let alone stopping political reform (eg at the moment Nigeria, many countries previously). Of course other factors are in play here I don’t deny that. The world would be better without religion and I would have no issue explaining that to billions of people who have been used and manipulated through the centuries by their rulers who use religion as a tool of control.

Please note just woken up so this may not be as cogent as it should be.

[BRAWL]

Originally Posted by AcidJiles

I have several issues with what you claim here. Yes violent people exist outside religion and bad things will still happen when religion is gone. However religion has the capacity to make good people do bad things in a way being agnostic or atheist never will (Don’t even trying bringing up Russia please it was not truly atheist, the state became the religion which is just as bad). There is a great quote on this I'm struggling to recollect. Religion gives people a set of guidelines that enables them to do things they wouldn’t normally do in the name of their religion. Religion doesn’t create violent nut-jobs per say but it does allow good people to do bad things because they have faith. You’re using extreme examples, the majority of people in Islamic countries are good people who care etc etc yet in many countries they are for the stoning of adulterers, the barbaric removal of body parts for crimes and various other punishments the Koran and other holy books extol. There are no more crazy people as you put it inside Islam than we have in the UK or any other country on average. Religion as a means of control is the same as any other dangerous social manipulator like communism or fascism within countries.

These billions you speak of the majority are in poor countries and while I don’t deny some short term comfort or otherwise can be provided by religion it does not solve their basic needs. Religion holds these countries back by stopping measures towards social progress and stifling real cultural advancement let alone stopping political reform (eg at the moment Nigeria, many countries previously). Of course other factors are in play here I don’t deny that. The world would be better without religion and I would have no issue explaining that to billions of people who have been used and manipulated through the centuries by their rulers who use religion as a tool of control.

Please note just woken up so this may not be as cogent as it should be.

Pretty damn true, emotions can run wild with those who believe in something specific. Islam for example, everyones remembers Mr Mohammad drawing, right? People went from normal sane 9-5 office workers, to those baying for blood and stoning! Completly irrational hatred for something that, well hey, may never have existed at all!

When it comes down to it I can think of one perfect quote

"Lister:... It's not fair, they're using religion as an excuse to be really crappy to one another"
"Toaster:... What else is new?"

Thankyou Red Dwarf

[Da_Rude_Baboon]

Originally Posted by BRAWL

Pretty damn true, emotions can run wild with those who believe in something specific. Islam for example, everyones remembers Mr Mohammad drawing, right? People went from normal sane 9-5 office workers, to those baying for blood and stoning! Completly irrational hatred for something that, well hey, may never have existed at all!

Football. Normal sane 9-5 office workers put on a football shirt and sit in the terraces and become a baying mob hurling abuse at the other team, the ref, the opposing fans. But thats not all football supporters, the really bad ones gives the rest a bad name. Oh wait a second that sounds familiar?

[Nexxo]

Originally Posted by AcidJiles

I have several issues with what you claim here. Yes violent people exist outside religion and bad things will still happen when religion is gone. However religion has the capacity to make good people do bad things in a way being agnostic or atheist never will (Don’t even trying bringing up Russia please it was not truly atheist, the state became the religion which is just as bad).

I think you unwittingly put the finger on your own confusion. In what way was the USSR's autocratic Communist regime like religion? Think about it.

What we are talking about here is a psycho-socio-cultural phenomenon. The reason why people support a particular football club, or live within a certain post code, or have a certain culture or skin colour or caste or sexual orientation or dress can range from pure coincidence, accident of birth to a whole range of personal reasons, and they have nothing to do with why some nutters feel compelled to kill each other over it as such. But what all these lifestyle choices, impositions or random characteristics have in common is that they can be used in tribalism: they become part of the often arbitrary rules and characteristics that are used to separate the (superior) in-group members from the (inferior) out-group.

Hence football hooligans are happy to kill each other over which football team they support. Gangs are happy to kill each other over territorial disputes marked by post codes; people are happy to kill each other over differences in culture or skin colour or caste or sexual orientation or even dress. Some people are just tribalistically inclined, because basically they are dumb, primitive and insecure and cannot handle a world view beyond a simple level of complexity.

It ain't just religion. You cannot get rid of it anyway. We are hardwired to believe in something.