Originally Posted by Consolator

I disagree with Zaqarbal's arguement that abstractions are not people.

Originally Posted by Dr.Seussicide

Uhhh... just in case you were unsure of the hierarchy here... Religion > Law...uhhh yeah. And you basically typed about four lines of nothing, void of any substance.

Originally Posted by Zaqarbal

If the integrists bomb troops or civilians because of this quran-burning, THAT is the main problem. If you don't see this, you're like one of those sexists who make excuses for a rape when saying "she provoked him".

-----

Let's see the facts:

• In a country of 310 million people, ONE person wants to burn a Quran.
• If you burn a Quran, certain people will try to attack your WHOLE COUNTRY.

Now I ask you guys: Which one of them is the most morally important to you?

Why the f**k you focus all your attention and energy on the first one and forget the second? Do you have any moral judgement to do regarding the second fact? No? Does it cause any interest to you? No? Really? Nobody has said anything about the huge inmorality of that violence. No one. There only have been mentions to the "strategic inconvenience" of the burning, but no moral opinions about the integrist violence. And that's pretty disappointing, especially considering this third fact:

• The latent threat exists and it will continue existing, whether Jones burns a Quran or not.

Another key point has to do with access to information and democracy (or lack of it). Since some years ago, there are several videos on YouTube showing a Quran burning. Why haven't been riots and demonstrations due to them? Because regarding access to information, there's a huge difference between developed and undeveloped countries. In Europe, America, Japan, South Korea, Australia, etc. our information sources are very diverse: TV, radio, written press and, especially, Internet. On the contrary, in countries like Pakistan, Iran or Sudan, people receive information "in the old way" and, in addition, there's a strong use of it by the political power.

Thus, in those countries, in the practice it's the rulers who decide what, when and how the socially-influential information is finally received by population. So they make a selective political use of denunciations, protests and satires against Islam, by choosing a certain case, a certain moment and a certain way to present the information, in order to satisfy their political purposes of the moment.

Think about the last five or four years. Imagine a Pakistani, Iranian or Sudanese journalist strongly connected to the country's Establishment. Imagine that, in a certain moment, for some political reason, some Muslim rulers want to adopt a belligerent position against the West, and they wish to convey the impression of a strong popular anger, in order to put pressure on other/s country/ies. Imagine the journalist receiving a phone call from a high-ranking official: "Man, we need your help; search for some offensive Western stuff there and write about it". Imagine the journalist reviewing hundreds of Western publications, and finally choosing some Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad (although they were published 11 months before). Or, also, imagine the journalist surfing the web and watching YouTube videos, and finally choosing a few of them in which people burn a Quran.

It doesn't matter if Jones does his pyromaniac christo-freak show or not. If the Islamic rulers want to take advantage of this controversy, they will do it, either through Jones or through the existing abundant graphic and audiovisual material ralated to criticism of Islam. If not, this will be forgotten in a few weeks' time. The importance given to this is up to them.


Conclusion: don't torture yourself with self-hatred. Keep in mind what are the primeval causes of all this matter: Lack of liberty, democracy and freedom of the press, absence of media networks, and a poor and easily-manipulated population in the Muslim countries where the tumultuous protests happen.

Don't have a guilty conscience. Regarding how public opinion form its criterion about these events, compare our modern socities with those of the upset Islamic "hotspots". There, it is the result of an oligarchy's will. In ours, we the people are freely and continuously exchanging information and opinions in an international scope. From Japan to Australia, from Alaska to Chile, from Lisbon to Moscow... everybody can contribute. So we are those who are nearest to a true cosmopolitan and rational point of view.

Originally Posted by bungalow

actually, i asked you a question (where is your righteous indignation over bible burnings, and, as big3 alluded to, the countless other acts that are offensive towards christians acted out every day for no reason other than offending christians?). common sense allows me to fill in the blanks occasionally--there is no indignation, and certainly no one calling for bible-burnings to be illegal. but the threat of rioting and violence from the muslim community leaves you shaking in your boots and questioning this man's right to burn whatever the hell he wants so long as it isn't alive. which brings me to the other thing i did in my post--call you a ninny.

moving on. religion > law---what does this even mean? the idea of religion is greater than the idea of laws? religious law is greater than man's law? i know we live in the short-hand ADD internet generation, but you're going to have to muster up more than a greater-than symbol to make your point. i don't know how to respond to a statement as vague and nonsensical as "religion > law." i'm not even sure what law you're talking about or why 'law' got brought in to it. the first amendment is not a law, it is a declaration of your natural right, as one of god's children, to uninhibitedly express yourself in whatever way you may choose. a law is stop at traffic lights illuminated red. the first amendment is not a law but a recognition of and assurance that your natural rights as a human being will never be infringed upon by the government.

one does not, i should note, have a natural right to NOT BE offended. therefore my right to express myself (which IS a natural right) trumps whatever obligation you think i have to respect you or your belief system. and that applies to anyone. so it should be clear that this man's symbolic expression (and anyone trying to argue that this is not symbolic expression is lying through their teeth, not least to themselves) is more important to protect than the feelings of muslims who are upset over this.

edit: i see zaqarbal is so clearly and thoroughly deconstructing the sentiments opposed to him, my posts aren't necessary.

Originally Posted by bungalow

thank you, for making no point whatsoever.

Originally Posted by bungalow

the first amendment is not a law, it is a declaration of your natural right, as one of god's children, to uninhibitedly express yourself in whatever way you may choose. a law is stop at traffic lights illuminated red. the first amendment is not a law but a recognition of and assurance that your natural rights as a human being will never be infringed upon by the government.

Originally Posted by bungalow

one does not, i should note, have a natural right to NOT BE offended. therefore my right to express myself (which IS a natural right) trumps whatever obligation you think i have to respect you or your belief system. and that applies to anyone. so it should be clear that this man's symbolic expression (and anyone trying to argue that this is not symbolic expression is lying through their teeth, not least to themselves) is more important to protect than the feelings of muslims who are upset over this.

Originally Posted by bungalow

(and anyone trying to argue that this is not symbolic expression is lying through their teeth, not least to themselves)

Originally Posted by Dr.Seussicide

Likewise, now go watch an indie 60's movie and feel better about yourself.

Originally Posted by bungalow

it would be cool for you to accuse me of not making a point if i actually didn't make a point. it's different to accuse me of not making a point if, while i was making it, you had your fingers in your ears and were yelling 'nananananananananananananananan.'

we can go over this once more for you: first amendment is a guarantee by the federal government to never infringe upon your unalienable right to express yourself. burning the koran is symbolic expression. because there is no natural right to not be offended, but there is a natural right to express yourself freely, this one man's expression warrants the protection of the government, while those offended by his actions do not.

that is called a point. you saying that man's law derives from religious doctrine is not. that's just you saying something, and i'm not even sure how it's explicitly related to this exchange.