News Quran Burning Cancelled: Publicity Stunt From The Start?

[ThomasT]

Regarding the OP's question, I think that the pastor genuinely hates Islam. But then how can I really know? He said he wants to burn Islamic 'bibles'. So what? If he burns some Korans then are Muslims going to hate Americans more than they do now? They already hate us, and with good reason, quite a lot. We've killed their families, ruined their lives, taken their homes, and occupied their countries. Are they going to hate us even more because this guy burns a few Korans?

But the media makes a big deal about this guy and his book burning. This is called scapegoating. It's propaganda. The idea is to obscure the fact that we've killed hundreds of thousands of Islamic families, ruined millions of Islamic lives and occupy Islamic countries. I think that this works, generally, and, personally, I'm not opposed to this.

We are at war with Islam. Why? It's not just because they have lots of oil. It's also because the Islamic way of life is contrary to the American way of life. The Islamic way of life would be, in my view, a terrible way to live. It would be like going back to the middle ages -- denying the 'enlightenment'.

The proposed bookburning was suppressed because we must defeat Islam while maintaining the moral superiority of the American ideals of freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

I think that we can discuss, on a scientific forum, how our government is going about this without having to pretend that the goal is anything other than the subjugation, or even the total elimination, of the Islamic way of life.

 

[DanP]

I find it disturbing that all of the condemnations from the US General, Speaker of the House, Hillary, Obama, and even Angelina Jolie was directed at some lunatic with 20 followers, and not on mass media which catapulted him to a celebrity status over night.

Press is free to publish whatever they want.

 

[mugaliens]

Press is free to publish whatever they want.

True, but unless it has some degree of credibility, neither the information nor the publication will be taken very seriously, at least not by those who matter. Thus, economics is the check against publishing nonsense.

 

[DanP]

True, but unless it has some degree of credibility, neither the information nor the publication will be taken very seriously, at least not by those who matter. Thus, economics is the check against publishing nonsense.

Indeed it is so. But a politician should never criticize the press for what it publishes.

 

[D H]

The proposed bookburning was suppressed because we must defeat Islam while maintaining the moral superiority of the American ideals of freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Whoa! Are you truly claiming that defeating Islam is one of the US's foreign policy goals? Are you truly advocating the suppression of expression of freedom of religion and freedom of speech to further the cause of those freedoms? The irony is quite delicious.

Freedom of religion in the US isn't about the people who want the whole world to sing kumbaya. Freedom of religion exists to protect idiots like this pastor and his flock. Freedom of speech isn't about the protecting the speech of people with whom you happen to agree. It exists to protect idiots like this pastor -- and the idiots in the press who have blown what rightly should have been a non-event into a foreign policy mess.

 

[nismaratwork]

Indeed it is so. But a politician should never criticize the press for what it publishes.

Why not? They have freedom of expression too, even if sometimes I would prefer they were muzzles.

 

[lisab]

Regarding the OP's question, I think that the pastor genuinely hates Islam. But then how can I really know? He said he wants to burn Islamic 'bibles'. So what? If he burns some Korans then are Muslims going to hate Americans more than they do now? They already hate us, and with good reason, quite a lot. We've killed their families, ruined their lives, taken their homes, and occupied their countries. Are they going to hate us even more because this guy burns a few Korans?

But the media makes a big deal about this guy and his book burning. This is called scapegoating. It's propaganda. The idea is to obscure the fact that we've killed hundreds of thousands of Islamic families, ruined millions of Islamic lives and occupy Islamic countries. I think that this works, generally, and, personally, I'm not opposed to this.

We are at war with Islam. Why? It's not just because they have lots of oil. It's also because the Islamic way of life is contrary to the American way of life. The Islamic way of life would be, in my view, a terrible way to live. It would be like going back to the middle ages -- denying the 'enlightenment'.

The proposed bookburning was suppressed because we must defeat Islam while maintaining the moral superiority of the American ideals of freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

I think that we can discuss, on a scientific forum, how our government is going about this without having to pretend that the goal is anything other than the subjugation, or even the total elimination, of the Islamic way of life.

While I have my doubts about how miscible a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam is with a fundementalist interpretation of Christianity, I have to take exception to your statement: We are most certainly *not* at war with Islam. We are in a battle with people who are using Islam to fan the flames of their own ambition and quest for power. We must be smart enough to realize that if we have any hope of winning.

 

[nismaratwork]

While I have my doubts about how miscible a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam is with a fundementalist interpretation of Christianity, I have to take exception to your statement: We are most certainly *not* at war with Islam. We are in a battle with people who are using Islam to fan the flames of their own ambition and quest for power. We must be smart enough to realize that if we have any hope of winning.

Well said.

 

[Q_Goest]

It was my thought to go there and burn holy books from every denomination - just to make a point.

I wonder which is more harmful:

• One backwater group of people demonizing Muslims, or
• much of the world dehumanizing Muslims to the point that they can assign blame to the backwater group for any Muslims that react violently.

Cheers! Seems like a double standard. Muslims are expected to react violently to burning their bible, so governments the world over make appeals to Mr. Gainsville concerned about innocent people being injured and killed by radical Muslims. These Muslims are expected to take the lives of innocent people for the actions of one Gainsville man, but for the rest of the world, people that do that are held accountable.



I'm sure this is just a tiny inkling of what's going on but...

In Afghanistan, at least 11 people were injured Friday in protests.

Police in the northern province of Badakhshan said several hundred demonstrators ran toward a NATO compound where four attackers and five police were injured in clashes.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100910/ap_on_re_us/quran_burning

Islam is Gerin Oil on steroids!

 

[nismaratwork]

Cheers! Seems like a double standard. Muslims are expected to react violently to burning their bible, so governments the world over make appeals to Mr. Gainsville concerned about innocent people being injured and killed by radical Muslims. These Muslims are expected to take the lives of innocent people for the actions of one Gainsville man, but for the rest of the world, people that do that are held accountable.

If someone kills another because of a book burning, they'd be held individually accountable, since it's a crime! You don't hold Islam responsible, you hold the killer and their compatriots (if there are any) responsible. Simple. Everything else is just the reality of politics and attempts at prevention.

 

[alt]

If someone kills another because of a book burning, they'd be held individually accountable, since it's a crime! You don't hold Islam responsible, you hold the killer and their compatriots (if there are any) responsible. Simple. Everything else is just the reality of politics and attempts at prevention.

It's more than the individual in this case though, isn't it ? It goes to the ethos of the culture or religion.

Most Muslims WOULD be opposed to a burning of their holy book, or to a depiction of their prophet - and many WOULD take violent action and think it perfectly justifiable.

On the other hand, the burn other nations flags (Americas for instance) and think that perfetly justifiable too.

 

[nismaratwork]

It's more than the individual in this case though, isn't it ? It goes to the ethos of the culture or religion.

Most Muslims WOULD be opposed to a burning of their holy book, or to a depiction of their prophet - and many WOULD take violent action and think it perfectly justifiable.

On the other hand, the burn other nations flags (Americas for instance) and think that perfetly justifiable too.

I don't know about many, but I agree that Muslims believe the quran is special in a way that others don't believe their 'holy books' are. Remember, that Muslims believe that every quran contains the literal words of their god... so burning it isn't just symbolic in the way that burning a flag or even a bible or vedic scripture would be.

I don't see that as justification for violence, but that "literal word of god" issue is at the center of a LOT of these issues between other religions and Islam in my opinion.

When it comes down to it, most Christians would be pissed if you burned bibles, but their attitude would generally be, "I can get one in any hotel room". There are also many version of the christian bible, so what's special to one may not be to all. I think this is a pretty complex issue, even at this relatively microscopic level.

 

[alt]

I don't know about many, but I agree that Muslims believe the quran is special in a way that others don't believe their 'holy books' are. Remember, that Muslims believe that every quran contains the literal words of their god... so burning it isn't just symbolic in the way that burning a flag or even a bible or vedic scripture would be.

I don't see that as justification for violence, but that "literal word of god" issue is at the center of a LOT of these issues between other religions and Islam in my opinion.

When it comes down to it, most Christians would be pissed if you burned bibles, but their attitude would generally be, "I can get one in any hotel room". There are also many version of the christian bible, so what's special to one may not be to all. I think this is a pretty complex issue, even at this relatively microscopic level.

Except that it isn't just at this microscopic level.

It's at the macroscopic, and there's no point in denying it.

Some years ago, there was an artist twit who came up with some great artwork - a picture of Christ immersed in urine - 'piss christ' he called it. Sure, there was much indignation, head shaking and breast beating amongst Christians, but I don't recall any issuing a death 'fatwa' against the artist, the gallery, or the artistic world.

My point is, that if this happened to a Muslim religious icon, the great body of the Muslim world would have risen up in loud defense - many would have been seething, and, OK, some would have been driven to violent action and murder, and thought it appropriate, and JUST ! You can't skate around this and call it microscopic - it's definitley macroscopic.

Nor do I accept the premise that they should believe that their holy books or icons should be more sacrosanct to them, than a Christian Bible should be to a Christain, or a Jewish Torah should be to a Jew. In fact, many of the two latter groups DO believe their holy book is the literal word of their God / prophets.

Yet we are somehow prepared to acquiesce, softly softly .. to the Muslim standard. Weird, that ! But why ?

 

[nismaratwork]

Except that it isn't just at this microscopic level.

It's at the macroscopic, and there's no point in denying it.

Some years ago, there was an artist twit who came up with some great artwork - a picture of Christ immersed in urine - 'piss christ' he called it. Sure, there was much indignation, head shaking and breast beating amongst Christians, but I don't recall any issuing a death 'fatwa' against the artist, the gallery, or the artistic world.

My point is, that if this happened to a Muslim religious icon, the great body of the Muslim world would have risen up in loud defense - many would have been seething, and, OK, some would have been driven to violent action and murder, and thought it appropriate, and JUST ! You can't skate around this and call it microscopic - it's definitley macroscopic.

Nor do I accept the premise that they should believe that their holy books or icons should be more sacrosanct to them, than a Christian Bible should be to a Christain, or a Jewish Torah should be to a Jew. In fact, many of the two latter groups DO believe their holy book is the literal word of their God / prophets.

Yet we are somehow prepared to acquiesce, softly softly .. to the Muslim standard. Weird, that ! But why ?

An Imam issuing a fatwah of the kind you're talking about is a cultural issue cloaked as religion for one thing. The issue here is the state of countries which are predominantly muslim in my view. If "piss christ" were in Uganda, I think the artist would be chopped to bits!

 

[drankin]

An Imam issuing a fatwah of the kind you're talking about is a cultural issue cloaked as religion for one thing. The issue here is the state of countries which are predominantly muslim in my view. If "piss christ" were in Uganda, I think the artist would be chopped to bits!

But, it wasn't in Uganda. Noone in Uganda did anything.

The quran burning is not in the ME. Hasn't even happened. Yet there have already been riots.

A simple experiment would be to burn an equal amount of every holy book and see who freaks out the most.

 

[alt]

An Imam issuing a fatwah of the kind you're talking about is a cultural issue cloaked as religion for one thing. The issue here is the state of countries which are predominantly muslim in my view. If "piss christ" were in Uganda, I think the artist would be chopped to bits!

Cultural or religious .. same, same .. It stills compels them to act in murderous ways.

Uganda .. chopped to bits .. then broiled and eaten I suppose. Point ?

The state of countries that are predominantly Muslim ? What of it ? Some special license not afforded to other states ?

 

[nismaratwork]

But, it wasn't in Uganda. Noone in Uganda did anything.

The quran burning is not in the ME. Hasn't even happened. Yet there have already been riots.

A simple experiment would be to burn an equal amount of every holy book and see who freaks out the most.

What DOESN'T cause a riot in the ME? If the standard of living weren't crap, and people hadn't been jerked around by their governments to believe some truly ridiculous things under the cover of religion, this wouldn't be an issue.

 

[nismaratwork]

Cultural or religious .. same, same .. It stills compels them to act in murderous ways.

Uganda .. chopped to bits .. then broiled and eaten I suppose. Point ?

The state of countries that are predominantly Muslim ? What of it ? Some special license not afforded to other states ?

I don't believe Uganda has ever been home to cannibals AFAIK, but it is home to chrisitan extremists that make anyone in the USA look like kittens. My point is that when you have a piss-poor country where any given religion is being used as a means of control, you get the same result. In fact, you get the same result when religion is being persecuted (Early Communist Russia for instance).

 

[alt]

I don't believe Uganda has ever been home to cannibals AFAIK, but it is home to chrisitan extremists that make anyone in the USA look like kittens. My point is that when you have a piss-poor country where any given religion is being used as a means of control, you get the same result. In fact, you get the same result when religion is being persecuted (Early Communist Russia for instance).

Let's put Uganda aside. It was garnish, at best.

The ethos that prevails with Muslims is the same - rich or poor.

Some of the more infamous acts have been perpetrated not by poverty sticken arabs, but by rich, well connected, highly intellignet ones.

 

[nismaratwork]

Let's put Uganda aside. It was garnish, at best.

The ethos that prevails with Muslims is the same - rich or poor.

Some of the more infamous acts have been perpetrated not by poverty sticken arabs, but by rich, well connected, highly intellignet ones.

Not even close in my view. If that's what you believe, it's going to take some HEAVY evidence. In my personal experience, muslims who are well-off and live in a stable environment drink and do other "little sins", with the belief that as long as you die accepting allah, you "win"... kind of like last rights and confession.

Your second stipulation that rich connected arabs organize and launch attacks is sophistry... poor and isolated ones won't have the MEANS! I don't see the ranks of terrorists filled with rich and clever muslims, just a minority that run 'em. In the case of the Taliban, that's not the case at all, because they're backed by Pakistan for strategic reasons. Sorry alt, you can't just reduce this to basics that don't exist.

 

[Jack21222]

The ethos that prevails with Muslims is the same - rich or poor.

Excuse me, I know a few Muslims. They're middle-class Americans and I've never heard a WORD out of them about any religious outrage. You, like so many others in these threads, are implying that Muslims are a homogeneous group.

There's a reason why most of the outrage comes from poor countries. There's a reason why more Muslim extremists exist in post-war Iraq than there were in pre-war Iraq. There's a reason they arose in poor Afghanistan and not in the wealthy UAE.

Of course there will be outliers in either direction, but there are socio-economic reasons for religious extremism that have little to do with their actual religion.

I call your attention to 1100 CE Europe. The poor oppressed Christians were absolute barbarians, while the rich Muslims were the center of civilization. Both groups were using the same holy texts that they are using today. They haven't changed. What HAS changed is the relative prosperity levels of each group.

 

[Hepth]

Cultural or religious .. same, same .. It stills compels them to act in murderous ways.

You yourself are guilty now of one of the larger problems though; they're NOT the same. Pride-driven violent acts of revenge for "personal" transgressions is CONSIDERABLY MORE a cultural trait than a religious one. Brushing aside trends like this leads to a misunderstanding of the true problems we face, which is a cultural divide rather than a religious one. The problem is that those who currently terrorize do so in the name of their religion as it is much easier to assemble and gain support under that banner than a cultural one.

We suffer the same "problem" here in the US with the Republican/Tea parties using the Christianity banner to try to garner support as "American Pride" doesn't always work here. The goal is to try to convince people to believe your decisions and ideals are the right ones by exhibiting characteristics to make the public feel that they "Belong" to the cause through labels they have a strong connection to. Religion is perfect. Nationality is usually great too, but in this case its a smaller scale.

The REAL PROBLEM is actually not this tactic (it's actually quite useful politically and is really a smart strategy) but rather the public NOT REALIZING its use, which I guess is sort of the whole point of manipulation...

(I'm not ragging on Republicans here, I'm just using their use of rallying to personal labels as an example of a successful strategy)

Every Muslim I've spoken to concerning these conflicts are vehemently against using violence AT ALL. They despise how their religion is portrayed as the motivating factor for terrorist activities. It IS a peaceful religion, just as is Christianity.

If a group started killing all the palm readers/psychics/etc under the banner of Christianity citing Leviticus 20:27
"A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads. "
I doubt most Christians would support them nor would they condone the labeling of them as representing Christianity.

People need to stop grouping everyone together with "them"s and "they"s.

 

[Andy]

This reminds me of another thread, "the general public is scientifically illiterate" but i think this thread could be renamed "the scientific community is religiously illiterate" don't want to tar you all with the same brush but i haven't got time (battery power) to quote all of the idiots that seem to think the problem is with islam, the problem is with religious fundamentalists. Simples.

 

[arunma]

This reminds me of another thread, "the general public is scientifically illiterate" but i think this thread could be renamed "the scientific community is religiously illiterate" don't want to tar you all with the same brush but i haven't got time (battery power) to quote all of the idiots that seem to think the problem is with islam, the problem is with religious fundamentalists. Simples.

Well I consider myself to be fairly religiously literate (at least for a scientist), but I'd be interested to hear your comments on my post in the "The U.S. has gone soft" thread:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2875193&postcount=192

I do believe that there is a fundamental problem with Islam. Now having said that, I should temper it with two other points. First, I don't think that Islam is beyond hope. After all, Christianity used to be pretty violent as well, but had a reformation and largely moved past that. Secondly, I'll fully admit that it's harder to paint people with a broad brush when you actually get to know them. Most Muslims I know seem just as normal as everyone else, and it's difficult to point to your average American Muslim and say that he's a terrorist. Nonetheless, a religion with violent doctrines will have a bulk effect on its population, and I have to say that this effect doesn't look so pretty in the Muslim world right now.

 

[Andy]

What are these violent doctrines that you are talking about? The reason the islamic faith is perceived as being violent is because the media only focus on the lunatic fringe of hate preachers that interpret the quran in a way that suits their own views and believes.

What i really struggle to believe is that some people on this site are soo willing to brandish an entire faith with a stereotype. That is like me saying all americans are fat and stupid, all dutch people smoke drugs and sleep with prostitutes or all black people deal drugs and steal cars. Completely beyond me how some of these people can claim to be intelligent.

 

[Hepth]

What i really struggle to believe is that some people on this site are soo willing to brandish an entire faith with a stereotype. That is like me saying all americans are fat and stupid, all dutch people smoke drugs and sleep with prostitutes or all black people deal drugs and steal cars. Completely beyond me how some of these people can claim to be intelligent.

They only have to be intelligent enough to create an account on an internet forum... I didn't know that was a measure for brilliance in science :)

I feel like most if not all of the more-respected posters/mods/etc aren't doing what you're claiming, so please don't brandish an entire forum with your small experience sample... ;)

 

[Andy]

so please don't brandish an entire forum with your small experience sample... ;)

Been an on and off member of this site for many years and i would never brandish the entire forum like that, i used the word "some" as its an undefinable amount. It could be many or it could only be a few.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't know about many, but I agree that Muslims believe the quran is special in a way that others don't believe their 'holy books' are. Remember, that Muslims believe that every quran contains the literal words of their god... so burning it isn't just symbolic in the way that burning a flag or even a bible or vedic scripture would be.

I don't see that as justification for violence, but that "literal word of god" issue is at the center of a LOT of these issues between other religions and Islam in my opinion.

When it comes down to it, most Christians would be pissed if you burned bibles, but their attitude would generally be, "I can get one in any hotel room". There are also many version of the christian bible, so what's special to one may not be to all. I think this is a pretty complex issue, even at this relatively microscopic level.

Does anyone believe the burning of bibles would ever be a lead story? (yes, I'm referring to "Left Wing Media" behavior).

 

[Andy]

Depends on who was doing the burning, if it was fundamentalist muslims burning the bibles on the grounds that christianity is evil then yes.

 

[baywax]

Yah!

That's cool... it was publicity and a right wing advertisement that brought this idea of burning religious books into the media. All news is good news as far as advertising goes.

But, my Canadian buddies in Afturdistan don't need any more reasons to be blown to ****.

Personally I think the Taliwallabingbangs can build the pipeline all by themselves. If the women and children don't like the conditions for living under a Tallywally rule, they should get immediate refugee status and get the f out of there. Remember it was the Women who stopped the violence in Ireland by refusing to... you know... their men.