News Should the Burning of Books Be Regulated by US Laws to Prevent Violence?

[Pengwuino]

Put Americans in poor economical and literacy conditions like in Afghanistan you wouldn't see a tiny difference between them and Americans.

These things like Americans are more civilized or this religion promotes more intolerance seem to be coming from ignorance if nothing else.

Sure, but then what do you define as civilized? What causes a person to kill someone because someone burnt a book thousands of miles away? What about honor killings?

 

[Pengwuino]

What populace did what?

The killings in Afghanistan. And to clarify, I mean when individual people do this and the society doesn't put intense pressure on bringing them to justice.

 

[rootX]

Sure, but then what do you define as civilized? What causes a person to kill someone because someone burnt a book thousands of miles away? What about honor killings?

See post #28.

You will find abundance of those in America too while none in economically developed Afghanistan. Americans are not doing those crazy things not because they have something special in their bloods or something special in their culture but only because they have better living standards and education (which brings tolerance) unlike unfortunate people in Afghanistan.

 

[Calrid]

The killings in Afghanistan. And to clarify, I mean when individual people do this and the society doesn't put intense pressure on bringing them to justice.

Apologies: I edited perhaps you could answer my other questions too?

 

[Pengwuino]

See post #28.

You will find abundance of those in America too while none in economically developed Afghanistan. Americans are not doing those crazy things not because they have something special in their bloods or something special in their culture but only because they have better living standards unlike unfortunate people in Afghanistan.

There is nothing special about individual Americans but our country, as does any other nation considered civilized, takes action against people who do such things. We hold our poorer citizens accountable just like any others when it comes to things like this. If for some reason we had a state that all of a sudden decided to legalize murder under certain circumstances, the rest of the nation would pounce on them overnight.

 

[Pengwuino]

Apologies: I edited perhaps you could answer my other questions too?

You're missing the point. I'm not talking about what the countries do to other countries.

 

[Calrid]

There is nothing special about individual Americans but our country, as does any other nation considered civilized, takes action against people who do such things. We hold our poorer citizens accountable just like any others when it comes to things like this. If for some reason we had a state that all of a sudden decided to legalize murder under certain circumstances, the rest of the nation would pounce on them overnight.

If a government had the power to stop terrorist acts do you think they would? Because in a lot of these countries killing someone in a vigilante style attack is most certainly illegal, Afghanistan and Iraq being notable cases of where this was so before we invaded.

When its the government who are the terrorists, oh sorry I mean legal comabatants, then of course they are the one's doing it so it becomes legal, then it becomes mirkier. So if Hamas fire rockets into Israel that is legal of course because the two sides have never been at peace and the two sides are state sponsored and engaged in a war. But then we do the same thing and call it state sanctioned. It's often hard to see the difference between a conflicts side and the justification for actions morally IMO. Israel moves in and kills hundreds of people who had nothing to do with the conflict and we are meant to be on their side? Why?

The CIA overthrows Mossedeq a democratically elected PM in Iran, and institutes a pro Western dictatorship in order to secure oil concessions for both the UK and America, then supplies it with nuclear reactors so it can preserve its oil reserves. Then some idiot who is a potential president threatens to bomb them because of the natural **** up that came from this. Is that going to make you feel any respect for a country when you live in Iran?

The UK offers Trans Jordan Palestine to "Syria" ie Fiessel in return for aid against the Ottomans. Then it reneges on the treaty and pisses off leaving a two state agreement and a lot of pissed off Arabs who never had a chance at the right of self determination. Who betrayed who?

It only ever becomes easy to judge when you see it in terms of them and us, and not just us. We are all just dicks.

 

[Pengwuino]

If a government had the power to stop terrorist acts do you think they would? Because in a lot of these countries killing someone in a vigilante style attack is most certainly illegal.

In some countries murder is seen as illegal anyway. When its the government who are the terrorists, oh sorry I mean legal comabatants, then of course they are the one's doing it so it becomes legal.

Please refrain from trying to derail the thread with comments like these. I'm not going to waste my time.

 

[Calrid]

Please refrain from trying to derail the thread with comments like these. I'm not going to waste my time.

You mean you have no argument and your polemic style isn't playing well. Fine.

You are clearly just another product of your biased media. Which is fine but when you say things that sound like self righteous guff, don't be offended when you are called out on it.

This would never of happened under Hitler!

Derail the thread? What is it you want it to be about since you seem to be the thought police here?

EDIT: so its ok for you to attempt to derail the thread with honour killings but not ok to talk about the politics that caused the book to be almost burned in the first place. Ooooookay.

 

[Ken Natton]

Hmmm, this seems to have somewhat wandered away from the point at the heart of this topic. Trying to drag it back…

I’m entirely with you, Pengwuino that the American pastor who burned a copy of the Koran is not responsible for the deaths of UN workers. Those who actually killed the UN workers are responsible for that. But the American pastor is responsible for his act of provocation and attempting to defend that as an example of free speech comes across to me as disingenuous.

And talking about ‘perceived’ insults is a similar distortion of the truth. It might be valid to talk about a ‘perceived’ insult when discussing Danish cartoons that include a representation of the prophet, and there might be a case to talk about ‘perceived’ insult when discussing books by Salman Rushdie. But burning a copy of the Koran is quite clearly a genuine insult and is entirely intended as such. Otherwise the act would be completely pointless.

 

[cobalt124]

Yes, book burning has a rather heavy history and that history tells us that usually, it doesn’t turn out very well. I know that some will find it too obvious to mention the famous Heinrich Heine quote, but the real point about that quote is that if someone is prepared to burn a book they are unlikely to have much compunction about the sanctity of human life. You may see it as an expression of free speech to burn a copy of the Koran, but a moment’s reflection has to tell you that it was a deliberate and calculated act of provocation whose awful consequences were not entirely unexpected. Yes there is an issue of proportionality of response, but arguing that it was an expression of free speech lends the act a dignity it does not warrant.

It was nothing to do with freedom of speech IMO. They must have known it would cause offence, which makes the act, well, spiteful. I don't know whether U.S. law has an "incitement to racial/religious hatred law", if it does, this act should come under it. Having said that, the response should be by the law, and not by arbitrary executions, which cannot be condoned.

 

[Calrid]

It was nothing to do with freedom of speech IMO. They must have known it would cause offence, which makes the act, well, spiteful. I don't know whether U.S. law has an "incitement to racial/religious hatred law", if it does, this act should come under it. Having said that, the response should be by the law, and not by arbitrary executions, which cannot be condoned.

It doesn't sadly AFAIK anyway? It seems to think this is a good state of affairs though and there's no arguing with the constitution.

I mean globally, on a state by state basis there might be laws but I've never heard of race/religion laws like that personally, they would probably interfere with a persons right to be a total dick in public. American law is odd tbh, its playing catch up IMO and its not the only one other former colonies appear to have quite lenient laws on racial intolerance. There's a few things that should be self evident and that is everyone has the right to be free of racial, sexual, sexuality, religious/irreligous, agist discrimination or in this case free from acts that might lead to racial/religious intolerance or hatred. I suppose it depends where you draw the line.

Personally as I said in an earlier post I am fine with book burning in general but in this case I would probably say it was just very unChristian to say the least.

If a book is just rubbish then it pays to recycle it rather than burn it I think. Calrid: Eco Warrior!

 

[cobalt124]

Definitely unChristian, and if the U.S. does not have such a law, I think that is an omission that needs correcting.

 

[Calrid]

Definitely unChristian, and if the U.S. does not have such a law, I think that is an omission that needs correcting.

Yeah a move to secular humanist ethics couldn't do any harm imo. I have argued that before. I don't see why Fred Phelps for example is allowed to be that much of a jackass. I don't see what greater good it serves. Some things and some very few things just don't need to be said in public.

 

[Alfi]

Burning the book was a waste.
of Nice soft paper ...

... you can get a full years worth out of it in the outhouse.
( as per Granny Weatherwax, a character of Terry Prachett in the Disc World series of books)
( I think he was talking about the Farmers Almanac ... but .. close enough)

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle :)

 

[DevilsAvocado]

... Forum rules about religious discussions prevents me from saying what I think about religious violence.

Thanks Evo, there must be a big hole in my head, because I could never understand how to reconcile "The Message of Love" with violence and murder...

"When one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion." -- Robert M. Pirsig​

 

[russ_watters]

But burning a copy of the Koran is quite clearly a genuine insult ...

So what?

 

[russ_watters]

It was nothing to do with freedom of speech IMO. They must have known it would cause offence, which makes the act, well, spiteful. I don't know whether U.S. law has an "incitement to racial/religious hatred law", if it does, this act should come under it. Having said that, the response should be by the law, and not by arbitrary executions, which cannot be condoned.

There's a few things that should be self evident and that is everyone has the right to be free of racial, sexual, sexuality, religious/irreligous, agist discrimination or in this case free from acts that might lead to racial/religious intolerance or hatred. I suppose it depends where you draw the line.

Where the line is drawn is an explicit incitement to violence by the speaker and for the speaker. Whipping up a crowd and then telling them to kill someone. The possibility of violence against the speaker can never be outlawed as it would be a direct contradiction of the concept of freedom of speech. The 1st Amendment exists precisely to protect guys like this pastor from local retribution.

You guys are looking at the issue of incitement of violence backwards and not protecting the person you are supposed to be protecting.

 

[Calrid]

Where the line is drawn is an explicit incitement to violence by the speaker and for the speaker. Whipping up a crowd and then telling them to kill someone. The possibility of violence against the speaker can never be outlawed as it would be a direct contradiction of the concept of freedom of speech. The 1st Amendment exists precisely to protect guys like this pastor from local retribution.

You guys are looking at the issue of incitement of violence backwards and not protecting the person you are supposed to be protecting.

What the idiot with odd views?

I don't see why he needs protecting, its usual minorities that are the subject of intolerance, if he is then his is also protected.

It's an ethics issue isn't it should a positive right have the possibility of infringing someone elses rights? I think we have it right, but meh its your country. I'm a pragmatist on this issue, that which causes the least harm. Sometimes a small number of things just don't nor ever will need to be said in public because their rights are self evident, and the very voicing of antithetical views is taken to be clearly not self evident: it is the 21st century, our laws enable people to move on. You're still allowed to say and believe whatever you like just so long as you don't do it to a crowd of the public. It's not like we're saying you can't mock fat people in public or people who steal, there are just 5 core truths here that are obvious to the secular humanist.

 

[Alfi]

a book is a bunch of pages with a language written on them.

is this an issue that some books are ,,' better ' .. than other books? Humans put the words on the books. Authors, editors, printers, money... ... etc.
When 'gods', put the words on books,,, I may change my opinions.
until then, A book is a book... It has a calorie value when burned, and nothing more.

 

[Calrid]

a book is a bunch of pages with a language written on them.

is this an issue that some books are ,,' better ' .. than other books? Humans put the words on the books. Authors, editors, printers, money... ... etc.
When 'gods', put the words on books,,, I may change my opinions.
until then,

No its an issue that some books have value other than the obvious.

A book is a book... It has a calorie value when burned, and nothing more.

That's not true anyway is it, if I burned your declaration of independence it would have more than a calorie value to you I hope? Insert whatever document you hold value to if you are not from the US or couldn't care less about the constitution. If someone burned a first edition of Tolkien's works in front of me I would be mortified, The Bible, not so much, the constitution of the UK not at all because it isn't written, burning an ideal that law is sovereign is not going to concern me much because it has no physical meaning to me, precedents are like that. We have to be mindful of what people value I think and the harm that we may inadvertently cause while enshringing the right to be a dick in public. With freedom comes great responsibility which is why most people fear it, as Shaw said.

 

[Alfi]

That's not true is it, if I burned your declaration of independence it would have more than a calorie value to you I hope? Insert whatever document you hold value to if you are not from the US or couldn't care less about the constitution. If someone burned a first edition of Tolkiens works in front of me I would be mortified, The Bible, not so much, the constitution of the UK not at all because it isn't written, burning an ideal that law is sovereign is not going to concern me much because it has no physical meaning to me, precedents are like that.

burn the wood ( a book) ...yes ... but You can't burn the ideas.
burn the wood printed pages of the declaration.( a book ) ... big deal .. just some air pollution. '

burn the flag ...( some carbon residue ) same thing ... burn a religious book ... same thing ...

Are you suggesting that the physical object has a meaning other than ..a book? Written by a human for the propose of profit?

It's JUST some words on paper. All else... is in your mind,

"if I burned your declaration of independence it would have more than a calorie value to you I hope?"

duh? I'm Canadian... You words seem to be directed to a different audience.

My point remains ... It's just paper . The question remains. Do you think some paper is more important than some other paper with words written on them?

why?

 

[Calrid]

burn the wood ( a book) ...yes ... but You can't burn the ideas.
burn the wood printed pages of the declaration.( a book ) ... big deal .. just some air pollution. '

burn the flag ...( some carbon residue ) same thing ... burn a religious book ... same thing ...

Are you suggesting that the physical object has a meaning other than ..a book? Written by a human for the propose of profit?

It's JUST some words on paper. All else... is in your mind,

"if I burned your declaration of independence it would have more than a calorie value to you I hope?"

duh? I'm Canadian... You words seem to be directed to a different audience.

My point remains ... It's just paper . The question remains. Do you think some paper is more important than some other paper with words written on them?

why?

I think some pieces of paper are very important to some people. That is the point. I think the Quran is very important to nearly a billion Muslims yes. I think burning it is likely to inspire anger. Books have value beyond their paper value just as money does, in some countries you aren't allowed to burn money either.

No my words are directed at anything you find value in look again.

I'm sure there are some things that if people burned them they would cause distress to you, if not then understand that it doesn't matter some people do feel like that. There are things that are material people hold extremely dear obviously, that is self evident.

 

[Alfi]

I think some pieces of paper are very important to some people. That is the point. I think the Quran is very important to nearly a billion Muslims yes. I think burning it is likely to inspire anger. Books have value beyond their paper value just as money does, in some countries you aren't allowed to burn money either.

No my words are directed at anything you find value in look again.

I'm sure there are some things that if people burned them they would cause distress to you, if not then understand that it doesn't matter some people do feel like that.

I hear you ..I just don't agree with you.
I disagree.
I think .. you think ideas are important.
A Billion Muslins ...A hundred Billion different god believers .. big deal ...so what?
You only speak for yourself. Same as me.

These ..( ANY).. .. people that will KILL humans for human words because they published them in a 'book' .. they have some problems.

that is self evident. .. Meaning ... It is evident to me. ... NOT that is evident to everyone.

 

[Calrid]

I hear you ..I just don't agree with you.
I disagree.
I think .. you think ideas are important.
A Billion Muslins ...A hundred Billion different god believers .. big deal ...so what?
You only speak for yourself. Same as me.

These ..( ANY).. .. people that will KILL humans for human words because they published them in a 'book' .. they have some problems.

Well if its just an opinion then fine.

But I think this transcends opinions. Many people have died for ideas, it seems in our natures to kill for a cause although Muslims tend to kill for political reasons just like we do rather than religious ones for the most part; although some people will try and tell you otherwise, it's usually about resources and land acquisition, the religion just makes people die with more conviction. It's no coincidence that hard line Islam was a rarity before Western ingress into these areas in the Colonial 18th/19th and the resource rights and land issues of the 20th/21st century.

 

[Alfi]

religion just makes people die with more conviction.

this is not a point I think is relevant.

dead is dead. To the point of the thread ... Did the people that died ...just doing their job ...Killed because some people think burning some wood with words written on them is offensive.

Was their murder justified ?
Tell that to their children. quote some pages. Burn those pages. burn them all ... The books ... not the people.

 

[Calrid]

this is not a point I think is relevant.

dead is dead. To the point of the thread ... Did the people that died ...just doing their job ...Killed because some people think burning some wood with words written on them is offensive.

Was their murder justified ?
Tell that to their children. quote some pages. Burn those pages. burn them all ... The books ... not the people.

Yeah well I agree in principle but would that do any good or would it just be two wrongs, hell it would be spite wouldn't it. We would be idiots to televise mass book burnings not only because of the history of such events, but it would drive some people spare whether it was The Bible or the Quran or Harry Potter. I'm ever the pargmatist, there are better ways to solve political disputes than antagonising each other in petty squabling.

Kill books not people is not really relevant, since obviously we place more value on people. Although we burned plenty of people for having controversial ideas historically. And in terms of killing in the name of... We are hardly without sin.

We can probably agree that religion is a divisive and often harmful meme at times, but then I believe such a discussion would breach forum guidelines.

 

[rootX]

a book is a bunch of pages with a language written on them.

is this an issue that some books are ,,' better ' .. than other books? Humans put the words on the books. Authors, editors, printers, money... ... etc.
When 'gods', put the words on books,,, I may change my opinions.
until then, A book is a book... It has a calorie value when burned, and nothing more.

That's more along the lines of cultural insensitivity. But sure if you don't like the book example, you can pick pastor showing up at funerals which I believe is a very similar case. Using the funeral example, might also get rid of these atheist/us vs them opinions which are unrelated to the OP.

 

[Alfi]

Kill books not people is not really relevan

umm ..bit I think it is ...

One can kill one of them .. dead! . Mothers,Fathers,Family members, friends ..not the other...
.. the people who put the words on the pieces of paper. ...editors, press workers..
the other ... it's a just some paper... the stuff written on them is ..just words.
by people ..for people.

burn the books ... so what?

 

[Newai]

What the idiot with odd views?

I don't see why he needs protecting, its usual minorities that are the subject of intolerance, if he is then his is also protected.

It's an ethics issue isn't it should a positive right have the possibility of infringing someone elses rights? I think we have it right, but meh its your country. I'm a pragmatist on this issue, that which causes the least harm. Sometimes a small number of things just don't nor ever will need to be said in public because their rights are self evident, and the very voicing of antithetical views is taken to be clearly not self evident: it is the 21st century, our laws enable people to move on. You're still allowed to say and believe whatever you like just so long as you don't do it to a crowd of the public. It's not like we're saying you can't mock fat people in public or people who steal, there are just 5 core truths here that are obvious to the secular humanist.

"that which causes the least harm."

You have this backwards. Reacting with violence over a burning book is what needs to be dealt with, not the book-burning. The greatest harm is in that reaction, in becoming a slave to the threat of violence over what is itself a harmless act before others decide to become murderously offended by it.

In Pakistan, Salmaan Taseer was murdered by his own bodyguard when he offered support to a woman charged with the capitol offense of blasphemy against Islam. People were so offended by his position that they celebrated his assassination. Is that where we're going here? Am I looking at a rule or law against my thoughts because some people will kill over my opinion? Do you know what kind of state that would be to live in?