A Proxy For Witches

[Winstonm]

It had to happen - a Florida church finally burned a copy of the Quran, leading to violent protests in Afghanistan. What exactly was the point of this episode other than to use the Islamic faith as a proxy for Salem witches?

[matmat]

There isn't enough hate and suffering in the world, they figured they should contribute some extra.

[nige1]

It had to happen - a Florida church finally burned a copy of the Quran, leading to violent protests in Afghanistan. What exactly was the point of this episode other than to use the Islamic faith as a proxy for Salem witches?

It's common for people to burn documents, flags, bibles, and so on (and to take other symbolic actions), without consideration for the feelings of others :(

[1eyedjack]

Couldn't they just print another copy?

[luke warm]

Couldn't they just print another copy?

 

sure, but where's the fun in that? yeah, burning a book, any book, probably isn't the best use of ones time, but i think there was a little overreaction present... people will blame the violence on the burning of the book (it appears winston already does) rather than the murderers

[blackshoe]

People are responsible for what they do, not what others do. Those who burned the Qu'ran are responsible for that act. Those who committed murder in response are responsible for those actions. "Some guy burned the Book!" is not a defense. Particularly considering that the murder victims had nothing to do with the burning.

[PassedOut]

sure, but where's the fun in that? yeah, burning a book, any book, probably isn't the best use of ones time, but i think there was a little overreaction present... people will blame the violence on the burning of the book (it appears winston already does) rather than the murderers

As Blackshoe says, people are responsible for their own actions, not for the actions of others.

 

But calling the Quran simply "a book" understates its importance to Muslims, who are dead certain that every word in the Quran comes directly from God. I've been told that the sheer poetry of the Quran surpasses the ability of any mortal, let alone that of an illiterate prophet. So, burning the Quran contemptuously insults God. It's this insult to God that elicits the violent reaction, not the fact that "a book" has been removed from circulation.

[1eyedjack]

And yet ... they could still print another copy.

[kenberg]

Myself, I don't walk up to people and call them names. Whatever my rights may be, I don't do it. I don't burn the Koran, or the Bible, or flags.

 

As to responsibilities: Yes, people who kill people are responsible for their actions. The fact that someone insulted them, or insulted their faith, or insulted their wife, or their dog, does not get them off the moral hook and should not get them off the legal hook either.

But also people are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their actions. What the hell did he expect to happen? Most likely he was quite aware of what would happen.

 

Many years back I picked up a hitchhiker while driving to downtown D.C. The guy turned out to be a true nut but, anyway, he was claiming that some black guys had stolen his stuff. This is in the days before air conditioners were common so my windows are rolled down and we are at a stop light. In the next lane over there is a car full of young black guys. My passenger is yelling loudly "the ---ing ---s ripped me off". I am not a happy camper. The guys in the other car were cool and contented themselves with something like "You're ---ing nuts, man" and then the light changed.

[ggwhiz]

It's a classic lose-lose situation that unfortunately comes with no consequences except to the innocent.

 

The Florida yahoos knew what would happen and did it anyway for their 15 minutes of fame. The Muslim rioters probably get medals.

 

We in the west are used to insults, attack ads and the right to call the guy we voted for a moron immediately upon taking office yet that's suicide in parts of the Muslim world.

 

Give us another couple of hundred years and maybe we'll sort it out.

[nigel_k]

As Blackshoe says, people are responsible for their own actions, not for the actions of others.

 

But calling the Quran simply "a book" understates its importance to Muslims, who are dead certain that every word in the Quran comes directly from God. I've been told that the sheer poetry of the Quran surpasses the ability of any mortal, let alone that of an illiterate prophet. So, burning the Quran contemptuously insults God. It's this insult to God that elicits the violent reaction, not the fact that "a book" has been removed from circulation.

Not true. Muslims believe that every word in the very first Quran was written down by Muhammad and told to him by God. The book that was burned in Florida did not come directly from God. It came from a printing press and contained text that was copied from a book that came from God. This is not just nit-picking. Your view shows a basic failure to understand what is and is not morally significant.

 

But also people are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their actions.

Whether it is a Quran-burner, a cartoonist, or Julian Assange, people are both morally and legally entitled to exercise freedom of expression, regardless of whether some lunatics on the other side of the world will use it as a justification (or more likely, pretext) for doing violence to others. The responsibility for violence lies entirely with those who do it. Any other view leads very quickly to some kind of absurdity.

[barmar]

And yet ... they could still print another copy.

Burning the Koran is a statement, a symbolic act. It's an extreme insult to the entire Islamic culture. It's not just a physical act on some paper -- they wouldn't have done it if that were all it was (it's not like they were freezing to death and needed to burn something for heat).

 

Printing another copy does not undo that.

 

However, the reaction to it was clearly even worse than the original act.

[kenberg]

Whether it is a Quran-burner, a cartoonist, or Julian Assange, people are both morally and legally entitled to exercise freedom of expression, regardless of whether some lunatics on the other side of the world will use it as a justification (or more likely, pretext) for doing violence to others. The responsibility for violence lies entirely with those who do it. Any other view leads very quickly to some kind of absurdity.

 

Legally, the law allows me to do all sorts of things. Morally, well, we all have our views of morality and I have no expectation that I will change another person's moral views by argument, nor that he will change mine. By example maybe, by argument not a chance. At any rate, the same view of morality that you espouse, leaving the pastor free to burn the Qu'ran (or however one transliterates the Arabic) also leaves me free to think that he is an anal opening (phrased to get past the bbo censors).

 

I was once walking with a fellow mathematician. As we came to a road with a marked crosswalk, he announced "We have the right of way here" and walked into the street without looking for traffic. I don't do that. I agree I have the legal and moral right to do so.

[Winstonm]

sure, but where's the fun in that? yeah, burning a book, any book, probably isn't the best use of ones time, but i think there was a little overreaction present... people will blame the violence on the burning of the book (it appears winston already does) rather than the murderers

 

No, I blame the entire incident on stupdity - on all sides.

[nigel_k]

Legally, the law allows me to do all sorts of things. Morally, well, we all have our views of morality and I have no expectation that I will change another person's moral views by argument, nor that he will change mine. By example maybe, by argument not a chance. At any rate, the same view of morality that you espouse, leaving the pastor free to burn the Qu'ran (or however one transliterates the Arabic) also leaves me free to think that he is an anal opening (phrased to get past the bbo censors).

 

I was once walking with a fellow mathematician. As we came to a road with a marked crosswalk, he announced "We have the right of way here" and walked into the street without looking for traffic. I don't do that. I agree I have the legal and moral right to do so.

I don't doubt the pastor is an idiot. I only disagree with you holding him morally responsible for people being killed.

 

My views on morality have been changed by argument many times, though I doubt you could convince me to change in this case. If a careless driver swerved to avoid your fellow mathematician and ran into a child on the sidewalk, who would be morally responsible for the child's injuries?

[blackshoe]

If something bad happens, is someone always "morally responsible"?

[luke warm]

But calling the Quran simply "a book" understates its importance to Muslims, who are dead certain that every word in the Quran comes directly from God. I've been told that the sheer poetry of the Quran surpasses the ability of any mortal, let alone that of an illiterate prophet. So, burning the Quran contemptuously insults God. It's this insult to God that elicits the violent reaction, not the fact that "a book" has been removed from circulation.

so what? this sounds suspiciously close to a defense, or at the very least a justification... there is none

No, I blame the entire incident on stupdity - on all sides.

wrong again... the blame for the deaths lie only at one door

[helene_t]

Some people who are now dead would have been alive without the pastor's actions. Not sure if that makes him "morally" responsible. I suppose it is a matter of semantics. Or maybe the question is if the calculated price (some innocent people are likely to die as a consequence of the action) is worth paying because the alternative (submitting to the thread of terrorism) would be worse. It is a little difficult to say for me as I don't really see the purpose of the Qu'ran burning. In the case of the Danish cartoons I lean towards saying that it is worth it. I put a high price tag on the freedom to publish political/religious satire. While I am also in favor on the freedom to make stupid public display of blasphemy (and actually feel quite strongly about it), the price tag is smaller in my case. Let me put it this way: if the country I lived in criminalized burning of certain books/flags/whatever I would probably donate some money to a campaign against that legislation but it is unlikely in itself to make me leave the country. If OTOH satiric cartoons were criminalized I would leave the country ASAP.

 

I disapprove of the Qu'ran (sp?) burning but not so much because of the fact that some innocent people were killed. It is sorta the same way I think about paying ransom to pirates to submitting to the demands of hostage-taking terrorists. I would say: just let the pirates/terrorists kill the hostages, even if their demands are small compared to what our hospitals pay to save a similar number of lives. We can't let our behaviour dictate by whether it might offend some religious extremists. In this case it offends lots of moderate muslims as well, and that is a good reason not to do it. But moderate muslims won't (per definition) kill innocent people even if offended so that's a different issue.

[hrothgar]

wrong again... the blame for the deaths lie only at one door

 

Let's extend this analogy a little...

 

In mid August, I wander up into the hills outside LA and toss a a few Molotov cocktail's into some stands of dry trees, setting off massive brush fires that destroy entire neighborhoods and kill a dozen people.

 

According to your logic, I don't bear any blame since the nature of dry wood is to burn...

 

People are capable of foresight.

In many cases, we can predict the consequences of our actions.

In turn, this means that we share the responsibility even if someone else is also to blame.

 

The Pastor Jones case is a tricky one...

 

I'm not sure whether burning copies of the Koran necessarily rises to the standard of (falsely) crying fire in a crowded theater which is the classic example of limits to free speach here in the US. However, I don't consider this to be an unreasonable assertion.

[blackshoe]

I think it would take a court to decide that question. I don't think that's likely to happen, though I suppose it might.

[PassedOut]

this sounds suspiciously close to a defense, or at the very least a justification...

Not to a careful reader.

[luke warm]

Let's extend this analogy a little...

 

In mid August, I wander up into the hills outside LA and toss a a few Molotov cocktail's into some stands of dry trees, setting off massive brush fires that destroy entire neighborhoods and kill a dozen people.

 

According to your logic, I don't bear any blame since the nature of dry wood is to burn...

i don't think that analogy holds, though you might could find one that does... one is an illegal act and the other legal... i could be wrong here, but i think it's a settled legal question that the consequences of an illegal act fall on the one acting

 

Not to a careful reader.

i read it again, carefully... here's what you said:

 

But calling the Quran simply "a book" understates its importance to Muslims, who are dead certain that every word in the Quran comes directly from God. I've been told that the sheer poetry of the Quran surpasses the ability of any mortal, let alone that of an illiterate prophet. So, burning the Quran contemptuously insults God. It's this insult to God that elicits the violent reaction, not the fact that "a book" has been removed from circulation.

as i said, so what if muslims believe exactly as you say they do? maybe you didn't say what you meant to say, or in the way you meant to say it, but the above is very close to an attempt at justification

[nigel_k]

i don't think that analogy holds, though you might could find one that does... one is an illegal act and the other legal... i could be wrong here, but i think it's a settled legal question that the consequences of an illegal act fall on the one acting

The existence of an intervening voluntary bad act makes all the difference in my opinion, and chopping heads off innocent people would qualify as one of those.

[awm]

The question of "how crazy" people are has to come into the discussion somewhere.

 

What I mean is, if a TV personality says on the air that "Obama likes to drink beer" and then some crazy prohibitionist tries to shoot the president because he believes what he saw on TV, we don't blame the TV personality. This is because shooting someone for liking beer is crazy.

 

On the other hand, if a TV personality says on the air that "Obama is trying to kill your grandma" and then some grandma-loving person tries to shoot the president because he believes what he saw on TV.... that is potentially a different story. This is because defending your grandma's life is substantially less crazy than shooting someone based on their beverage preferences.

 

In general, I am responsible if my actions directly cause harm to others. I am also responsible if my words or actions are such that they would convince a reasonable (not crazy) person to cause harm to others. If a crazy person uses my words or actions as an excuse to harm others when no reasonable person would ever do so, I am not responsible. Obviously this is somewhat subject to personal (and legal) judgment. But I think we can agree that killing people who weren't even involved in the Qu'ran burning falls into the crazy camp.

[Winstonm]

When I was 8 or 9, I was at my grandfather's farm and there was a large wasp nest in the house's eaves. I hated wasps. I hated them so much that I decided to fill a large glass with water, splash the nest, and run into the house.

 

Unfortunately, about a gazillion angry wasps fly faster in formation than 9-year-old legs can run, and so my attack on this colony of "sleeping dogs" was an unmitigated failure, and I was stung several times.

 

My actions were stupid. The wasps were just being wasps.