Quran Burning

[Gharib]

That's different because it's not mere speech alone, but coupled with the action of it being forced upon someone.

don't think so. if i was to call you names right now, how am i forcing anything on you, i'd just be calling you names. eventually you will become sick and tired of me and if i don't stop you will start stressing etc etc.

 

[Gharib]

That's different because it's not mere speech alone, but coupled with the action of it being forced upon someone.

another question to this post, then this same thing applies to quran burning. no? that too is not mere speech alone, but coupled with an action. do you dissagree?

 

[Father Heathen]

don't think so. if i was to call you names right now, how am i forcing anything on you, i'd just be calling you names. eventually you will become sick and tired of me and if i don't stop you will start stressing etc etc.

Calling me names doesn't victimize me nor violate my rights in any way, shape or form.

And if I were emotionally fragile and insecure enough to be distressed by name-calling, I could simply use the ignore feature.

 

[Gharib]

Calling me names doesn't victimize me nor violate my rights in any way, shape or form.

thats not what experts are saying:
look at the perfect example of freedom of speech that the civilised west is talking about.
http://www.cyberbullying.info/resources/downloads/ChrisWebster_WhatIsCyberbullying.pdf

And if were emotionally fragile and insecure enough to be distressed by name-calling, I could simply use the ignore feature.

i wasn't talking about doing that in this forum, just a general example.

 

[Gharib]

Your logic is flawed.

in what way?

 

[Father Heathen]

another question to this post, then this same thing applies to quran burning. no? that too is not mere speech alone, but coupled with an action. do you dissagree?

Someone burning some silly book; an inanimate object that is his own personal property. He is not targeting individuals nor forcing anyone to attend his actions. No one is actually victimized, nor their rights violated. If they allow for their feelings to be hurt and their egos to be bruised by second hand accounts of something they attached emotion to being destroyed, then that is their own problem.

It is common to see the American flag being burnt in protest in the middle east, now imagine if a bunch of christian fundamentalist rednecks started lynching random muslims in retaliation. While I disagree with the sentiments of the muslims who burn the flag, I feel they should be allowed to express their opinions in such a way as long as no one is actually harmed.

 

[Father Heathen]

thats not what experts are saying:
look at the perfect example of freedom of speech that the civilised west is talking about.
http://www.cyberbullying.info/resources/downloads/ChrisWebster_WhatIsCyberbullying.pdf



i wasn't talking about doing that in this forum, just a general example.

Like I've already said; bullying goes beyond mere statements and expressions - it involves harassment and intimidation. Now if someone were following you around and burning korans on your doorstep, then that would be victimizing you and violating your rights.

 

[Gharib]

Someone burning some silly book; an inanimate object that is his own personal property. He is not targeting individuals nor forcing anyone to attend his actions. No one is actually victimized, nor their rights violated. If they allow for their feelings to be hurt and their egos to be bruised by second hand accounts of something they attached emotion to being destroyed, then that is their own problem.

It is common to see the American flag being burnt in protest in the middle east, now imagine if a bunch of christian fundamentalist rednecks started lynching random muslims in retaliation. While I disagree with the sentiments of the muslims who burn the flag, I feel they should be allowed to express their opinions in such a way as long as no one is actually harmed.

the Qur'an belongs to muslims, a non-muslim may respectfully read it but in no way are they allowed to damage it. why is there a punishment for copying movies and selling them? or what about destroying a currency? (in australia if you destroy any note or a coin and you are reported there is punishment for that).

as for the falg if someone rose in protest against it, then according to logic their protests are justified, same goes for muslims when someone burns our qur'an.

 

[Gharib]

Like I've already said; bullying goes beyond mere statements and expressions - it involves harassment and intimidation. Now if someone were following you around and burning korans on your doorstep, then that would be victimizing you and violating your rights.

i know that bullying goes beyond mere statements, it gets physical too, but the article i posted speaks of mere statements. read it again if you dissagree.

 

[Father Heathen]

the Qur'an belongs to muslims, a non-muslim may respectfully read it but in no way are they allowed to damage it.

"in no way are they allowed"? By who's authority?

why is there a punishment for copying movies and selling them? or what about destroying a currency? (in australia if you destroy any note or a coin and you are reported there is punishment for that).

Because piracy is theft of another's property and currency is technically government property. No sure what this has to do with people deciding to burn their own books?

as for the falg if someone rose in protest against it, then according to logic their protests are justified, same goes for muslims when someone burns our qur'an.

So what you're saying is that it's okay for muslims to destroy what others revere and hold sacred, but not okay for others to destroy what muslims revere and hold sacred? And what makes you think non-muslims will abide such hypocrisy? Can't demand respect while refusing to give it in return.

 

[Gharib]

"in no way are they allowed"? By who's authority?

islamic authority, it belongs to muslims. simple.

Because piracy is theft of another's property

no, if i were to BUY a movie and make copies of it i would get punished right?

and currency is technically government property. No sure what this has to do with people deciding to burn their own books?

government property? says who? if i work for it it's my property, the government cannot in any way take it from me, if you can't take something from me then it doesn't belong to you, doesn't matter what i do with it.

same thing with the quran.

So what you're saying it's okay for muslims to destroy what others revere and hold sacred, but not okay for others to destroy what muslims revere and hold sacred? And what makes you think non-muslims will abide such hypocrisy? Can't demand respect while refusing to give it in return.

no thats not what i'm saying. i'm saying that if muslims burn US flags and US citizens rose against it, their rise would be justifiable, same thing goes with muslims when non-muslims burn the quran. make sense?

 

[Anonymouse]

have you ever heard of verbal abuse, verbal harassment, verbal bullying, psychological abuse etc etc. don't they cause people to be victimized?

I think that what Father Heathen is trying to express is that because of this demonstration (the burning of a Quran) Muslims around the world are still alive to be (or not be) offended. Insult can be easy to get over. Death, on the other hand, is more difficult.

 

[lunakilo]

And if you choose the path of violence you should be fully prepared for the retaliation of that response.
So, if these extremist groups feel like being bombed back to the stone-ages, they should by all means continue along this path.

Unfortunatly, the people being bombed back to the stone age is usually the violent guy's neighbors.

 

[Father Heathen]

islamic authority, it belongs to muslims. simple.

You do realize that "islamic authority" is absolutely meaningless to non-muslims, right?

no, if i were to BUY a movie and make copies of it i would get punished right?

Likewise if someone made copies of a copyrighted book. However the koran is public domain. Still not sure what this has to do with someone burning copies of something they personally own.

government property? says who? if i work for it it's my property, the government cannot in any way take it from me, if you can't take something from me then it doesn't belong to you, doesn't matter what i do with it.

That's the claim, but I agree that it's nonsense. If anything, by destroying their own money people would be helping to reduce inflation by taking a bit of currency out of circulation (I think.. it's late and economics aren't my strong suit).

same thing with the quran.

If you can claim that all copies of the koran magically belong to you, I can claim 50% of your earnings magically belong to me. Of course, neither claim would be recognized by any legal system in the real world.

no thats not what i'm saying. i'm saying that if muslims burn US flags and US citizens rose against it, their rise would be justifiable, same thing goes with muslims when non-muslims burn the quran. make sense?

Of course it's understandable that people would be offended and upset if something they revered and held sacred was disrespected and desecrated, but that's just the way it goes. Feelings get hurt, egos get bruised, but to resort to censorship just to spare the oversensitive and insecure is just silly.

 

[lunakilo]

I am not usually condoning the use of violence, but if that is the only thing that get's through to these people, and if that is the path they have chosen, then so be it.

So if they get mad at you, they should just ignore you, but if you get mad at them you can bomb them?

 

[jarofthoughts]

so you are saying that there is freedom of actions but to some extent. well same goes for speech then. doesn't it?

Why are you so eager to equate speech with actions?

They are not and will never be one and the same thing.
What is true for one does not in any way have to be true for the other.

 

[jarofthoughts]

in what way?

Because you cannot equation speech with actions.
They are not the same and what is true for one does not have to be true for the other.

 

[Father Heathen]

So if they get mad at you, they should just ignore you, but if you get mad at them you can bomb them?

Not that I necessarily agree or disagree, but wouldn't the severity and consequences of what precisely made them mad make a difference? Being upset because your Happy Meal didn't come with the toy you wanted and being upset because your family died trapped in the burning wreckage of an auto accident isn't the quite the same.

 

[jarofthoughts]

another question to this post, then this same thing applies to quran burning. no? that too is not mere speech alone, but coupled with an action. do you dissagree?

While we can agree that the actual burning of the Quran is indeed an action, all actions are not equal.
So this comparison buys you nothing.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

You all make it seem like burning Qurans is as harmless as chucking wood to a campfire. This simply isn't true. It is an act of hate and discrimination, and rallies people to oppress Muslims.
It's a disgrace to the name of Christianity, and so real Christians have to deal with the scrutiny thereafter, not just from Muslims but the entire world.