Church Plans on Burning Qur'an on September 11th - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge > Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-11-2010, 07:30 PM   #101 (permalink)
DO LIKE YOU.
 
P A N's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 623
Default

i just think jones is an idiot and that the extremist reactionaries are idiots too, all of them together for not using logic at all.
P A N is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2010, 07:45 PM   #102 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
bungalow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hot-lanta
Posts: 3,140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnard17 View Post
One of god's children? Have you been reading the same copy of the constitution that I have? The first amendment makes no mention of God. In fact the founding documents make pointed little reference to any deity let alone a specific one.
you're right, our founding documents do make very few references to a specific god. i'm sure we can agree, though, the references that are made are moderately important---like the one that says "all men...are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." this was of course, the declaration of independence, which is the basest of american foundational documents. it was the ultimate intention of the founders in composing the bill of rights to expound upon this ideal, and to establish a country whereby that ideal would be respected. how do i know the intentions of the founders? because they composed dozens of documents and gave dozens of speeches debating these ideas. madison, in particular, specifically alludes to john locke's philosophy of the state of nature and natural rights in his address presenting the bill of rights to the delegates of the constitutional convention: "It may be said, in some instances they do no more than state the perfect equality of mankind; this to be sure is an absolute truth..."

Quote:
More so, the claim of "natural rights" is heavily debatable. While the intention may have been to state what the founding fathers believed to be inherent to all human beings; it remains that any enforcement of the document must go through legal processes. Id est, regardless of the rhetoric you surround the bill of rights with they are still functionally nothing other than laws that the Government agrees to abide by, which is why there are still provisions for Government to amend these "natural rights".
it wasn't debatable to the men who founded the united states, and since that is the country in question i regret that your opinion on the matter doesn't weigh much. the point is, the founders of this country felt that certain rights were granted to humanity by God, and that no government can infringe upon them. and the fact of the matter is, as free-thinking, free individuals we do have natural rights (feel free to read kant's dissertation proving this through the use of--your favorite--reason!). the first amendment is not enforced through legal means, it isn't enforced at all because there is nothing to enforce. what the government enforces are laws that prohibit one person from violating the natural rights of another. the rights themselves just are. and there is, ostensibly, no provision for altering the first amendment, or any contained in the bill of rights. madison made clear that the first amendment, above all, was inviolable.



Quote:
Non sequitur based on regress arguments. I do not accept your claim to the distinction of what is and is not a natural right. I do not accept your claim to a substantive existence of natural rights. I do not accept your claim that this is a matter of a right to not be offended. The act of burning the Koran is a flagrant incitement to encourage feelings of hatred and a mentality of action against Muslims. It is Islamophobic persecution under the reasoning and cognitive function with which the act is being carried out. Rev Jones is breaking the rights of Muslims to their own freedom of religion using a warped perception of the importance of his own freedom of expression.
it doesn't matter if you agree with me or not chief. i have no power to speak of. but the men who established this country shared my beliefs, and DID have power, and DID establish a country that recognizes natural rights and recognizes expression as one of them. and the bold is an absolutely absurd statement. how is he breaking their right to freedom of religion? they are just as free to believe as they believe and practice as they practice whether he and the 4 other members of his church burn korans or not. what sort of power are you investing in this man?

it surprises me that so many of you are having trouble grasping the concept of total freedom of expression.
bungalow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2010, 07:48 PM   #103 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
bungalow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hot-lanta
Posts: 3,140
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnard17 View Post
Non sequiturs and regress arguments. You fail to even be internally rigorous in your claims.

Again, natural rights do not definitively exist. Back them up or drop the subject as a baseless point.

If the first amendment is enshrining what is, by your definition, a natural right then they refer to not only rights from the Government but also rights from others.
Burning the Koran in the mode with which Rev. Jones intended does not just cause offence but propagates persecution. That is to say his right of expression is a statement against, infringement upon and incitement that others should infringe upon the freedom of religion for Muslims.
If you claim that such rights are natural and self evident (which I maintain is mere rhetoric but not necessarily inept as a description of the way in which such things should function) then the purpose of the first amendment should not be just to protect from the Government but also against other citizens who would infringe those rights. If you do not maintain this is the merit of the document then you must cede that you do not believe your own claim that the rights are natural, or you must cede that your application of such rights have ethnocentric motivations. If you do not maintain that this is the capability of the document then you must cede that it is a simple law through it's capacity of writing and not in reality an actual, distinguished through universal application, right.
the reverend jones has every right to express that he believes the rights of muslims should be infringed! isn't it beautiful! the line is drawn where he calls for violence. saying that burning the koran is an incitation to violence is a slippery slope.
bungalow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2010, 07:50 PM   #104 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 255
Default

I'm a christian myself, and whilst I live in Australia not USA I think this guy is an idiot, religious extremeists aren't ever good...I'm glad for people who are passionate in their faith, but it shouldn't become some sort of a persecution of differing opinions
supermarlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2010, 08:08 PM   #105 (permalink)
My home? Discabled,
 
Barnard17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Bristol, UK
Posts: 203
Default

Because so many of us have an understanding for the need of toleration for those rights to be respected. Which is to say toleration of both sides, not just toleration of Muslims to have their beliefs trampled because it's popular to do so.

I explained the bold statement you highlight, which is a conclusion provided based on those explanations, so why not attack those explanations instead of secluding the conclusion from them and claiming it unsupported? I will not fall for your strawman.

In general I'd re-read Article V if I were you.

More specifically to natural rights, to simply say that they're believed by others and therefore inviolable is a failure to confront the argument at hand. Cede that they are based upon an unsupported regress argument (which your yourself contradict, quad erat demonstrandum), or back up the claim that there exist universal rights without using circular logic. Personally I'm much more inclined towards the existence of a social contract in which "rights" exist as a function. If a "right" can be infringed it isn't truly a "right", the term becomes rhetoric but not necessarily negatively so as long as it's thoroughly inspected and understood.

I argue within the bounds of what you want to argue within to the extent of what is plausible. I am, however, capable of using my brain to think, debate and assess the merits of what those bounds are rather than being tied purely within them. Socrates is the father of modern philosophy because he was willing to question rather than simply accept.
__________________


Vita brevis,
Occasio praeceps
Barnard17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2010, 10:47 PM   #106 (permalink)
snickers
 
Trauma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: detroit
Posts: 2,194
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freebase Dali View Post
You don't remember the Muslim reaction and resulting fallout to the Danish Mohammed Cartoons, do you?
I'm not saying we should walk on eggshells out of fear of pissing Muslims off or anything... but seriously... if you know something is going to cause aggression and provoke violence, you stay the hell away. The stupidity is this guy using the first amendment as justification for making a stupid move. What that does is not only cause problems, but paves the way for more rules and laws to be put into place to limit your freedoms anyway... Use your rights in a way that doesn't screw it up for everyone else.
Haha nice contradiction.
Don't "walk on egg shells... but seriously..."
This is the whole problem with government regulation of rights; complete contradictions.
I say that if YOU'RE afraid of international thermonuclear war, why don't YOU travel across the country and stop him?
Otherwise, shit's going to happen whether anyone likes it or not.

The real joke in this situation is this: religion.
If crazy Muslims burned Bibles in the Middle East, people here would be outraged... but not vengeful.
Citizens of the United States would think, "They are so barbaric and crazy." Then they would laugh at them in a pretentious manner.
If some crazy Christian nut, or a bigoted nut (whatever), in the United States burns Qu'rans, level headed Muslims should be thinking "They are so barbaric and crazy," not "We need to kill them."

I'm not sure why this is so publicized.
It's giving credit to the ignorant and idiotic.
__________________
A mi no me importa nada
Para mi la vida es un sueño
Trauma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2010, 10:57 PM   #107 (permalink)
Partying on the inside
 
Freebase Dali's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,345
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trauma View Post
Haha nice contradiction.
Don't "walk on egg shells... but seriously..."
This is the whole problem with government regulation of rights; complete contradictions.
I say that if YOU'RE afraid of international thermonuclear war, why don't YOU travel across the country and stop him?
Otherwise, shit's going to happen whether anyone likes it or not.

The real joke in this situation is this: religion.
If crazy Muslims burned Bibles in the Middle East, people here would be outraged... but not vengeful.
Citizens of the United States would think, "They are so barbaric and crazy." Then they would laugh at them in a pretentious manner.
If some crazy Christian nut, or a bigoted nut (whatever), in the United States burns Qu'rans, level headed Muslims should be thinking "They are so barbaric and crazy," not "We need to kill them."

I'm not sure why this is so publicized.
It's giving credit to the ignorant and idiotic.
It's not a contradiction. It's a compromise.
If you have a caged, rabid dog that you know will bite you... you're perfectly free to put your hand in the cage. That's your decision. But it's a stupid move.
The problem is that he's not just putting his hand in the cage... he's opening the door. I do realize that it's probably not going to change the fact that there will be extremist violence either way, but if you want to burn someone's bible, do it in private. Nothing is gained by provoking.
And I'm not saying all Muslims are extremists... but you'd have to be an idiot to not predict the effects of such a move.
Freebase Dali is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2010, 12:51 AM   #108 (permalink)
( ̄ー ̄)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,258
Default

I've been following the arguments in this thread, and I have something relative to say, but I don't think I'm addressing anyone in particular. More or less, it's my general opinion on this horrendous non-issue.

A few of you have thrown around the idea of "tolerance". But here's the thing: The point is not that hate is bad or that acceptance is good, but whether we're doing so based upon rational reasons. Open-mindedness is only a virtue if it's tempered with wisdom.

I fully support burning the Quran. It's a horrendous, disgusting piece of literature. But then again, I also fully support burning the Bible because it's also horrendously disgusting. Would I ever actually burn either holy book? No. And I certainly wouldn't do it on the anniversary of a national tragedy. The guy is an extremist, and an attention whore. He's an idiot. And everyone who's making such a huge deal out of it is just playing along. They're mafia-wife idiots.
RVCA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2010, 04:56 AM   #109 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Zaqarbal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 823
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Seussicide View Post
I'm almost done with my degree btw, just one more year. And it's Chemical engineering, because I just find the sciences to be more rewarding intellectually than Modern Studies. Well, it's that and any fool can pick up a book and regurgitate information. So maybe then we'll be on par and you can address you pedophilia issues about your concern with the first time I wanked. The seniority card doesn't stack up well over the internet, especially when I thought you were circa my age. I'm 19 in case your throbbing invalid ego must know.
I'll do you a favor: I won't continue this battle of insults. Your satiric skills are very poor, and I feel sorry for you because you'd probably end up being dialectically sodomized. BTW, I exaggerated all those things: actually I'm not a know-all, I don't care about your age and I'm not so old (I'm only a few years older than you). I was only pretending to have an "owerwhelming intelectual superiority" to make you feel ankward, and thus soften that annoying tone of insolent enfant terrible you had (you cannot bug a person that way ). Anyway, now you mentioned you're about to be a chemist, if you're able to make amphetamines I'd be interested to buy them at a good price.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Seussicide View Post
And what you've shown me, is a 9minute long video, what I want you to show me is your own thoughts. Or maybe we should all just copy and paste articles and see who has the best research skills.
My thoughts about what? Maybe you didn't get my point. Let's go back to the beginning:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Seussicide View Post
To separate the two is to separate a man's ideas from himself. How can you possibly do that, when the ideas in which he believes shapes and constructs his very etiquette of thinking. What you believe and who are you are, are not two parallel dimensions but rather two dimensions that overlap one another.
I mean "to separate" in order to make moral judgements. Perhaps there's a problem with the meaning of respect. I know it's an ambiguous word, but keep in mind that I'm not a native English speaker, and sometimes I can't find the accurate terms. I thought the video would clarify that what I mean better than me (I feel clumsy when writing about meticulous concepts in English). It seems to be that, strictly speaking, respect denotes esteem or a positive feeling. Considering that, and to avoid confusion, we better use a more proper word when talking about people (although we'll keep the word respect regarding ideas). I've thought of tolerate, but according to some definitions tolerance does not necessarily exclude contempt. I can't find a perfect verb for it, but the underlying concept is clear: TO BE CIVIL. That is, to treat him, at least, according to our common minimum ethical values. There are certain minimum standards, and thanks to them people live together as members of the same society. The aim is to express, at least, normalcy, coexistence as usual, lack of conflict or contempt. That there's nothing "anomalous" that could disrupt our life in society.

So, to sum up, the question would be: Is it possible to be civil to someone, and, at the same time, not to respect his ideas (or some of his his ideas)?

Obviously yes. I think nowadays most of the people distinguish between the two concepts: "to be a good citizen" and "to be an atheist, an agnostic, a Christian, a Buddhist, etc."

Edit: "popular wisdom" corroborates my answer: "Live and let live".
__________________
"Lullabies for adults / crossed by the years / carry the flower of disappointment / tattooed in their gloomy melodies."

Last edited by Zaqarbal; 09-12-2010 at 05:09 AM. Reason: + one line
Zaqarbal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2010, 07:15 AM   #110 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Zaqarbal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 823
Default

To atheists, in case you didn't know: Last Friday Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated an excelent argument in favor of burning the Koran:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Burning the Koran would be a violation of the teachings of all religions
I gotta buy gasoline...
__________________
"Lullabies for adults / crossed by the years / carry the flower of disappointment / tattooed in their gloomy melodies."
Zaqarbal is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2022 Advameg, Inc.