Everyone's heard about it...a pastor in Florida wants to burn Korans on September 11th because Islam is apparently "of the devil." Everyone from Hilary Clinton, Sarah Palin, President Obama, and Joe Shmo from my high school is commenting and has something to say. We're making too much of a big deal about this situation and giving religion undue respect.What are the objections to "Burn a Koran Day" and are they valid objections?
"Buring the Koran is so disrespectful! People hold beliefs and you shouldn't offend them!
“Each religion, with its respective sacred books, places of worship and symbols, has the right to respect and protection,”"
The main problem here is that we are putting religious items on a pedestal and giving undeserved respect to religion about other areas of life. Sure, some people might find great meaning in religion, holy books, etc, but why should this be a reason to step away and not criticize these books and beliefs? People also take great pride in their business, movies, blogs, etc. Should people stop writing scathing restaurant reviews just because people might find the criticism offensive and disrespectful? Should we stop giving movies horrible reviews? Should we stop saying about how horrible popular radio music is...?
I might hold a litany of beliefs and certainly wouldn't cry and kill people if they disagreed and critiqued me. I put a good amount of time into blogging, discussing religion, etc. If someone printed out pages from my blog and burned them, should I threaten the individual because they did this? Of course not. Behavior like this should not be tolerated. If I had a belief that I could shoot mind lasers from my eyes and ignite streetlights and held this "close to my heart," should my belief be immune from criticism and "not be made fun of?" Of course not...so why do we treat ideas regarding religion differently? No idea should be above criticism.
"If the guy burns the Koran, people are going to die because of what he did! The pastor is going to be responsible!"
Many problems exist with this claim. Is it possible to link the burning of this book to increased violence? And if it is, is this a sincere link? What if Muslims use this as an excuse to incite violence and/or we interpret violence as resulting from this? Correlation is certainly not causation.
If people do die (and we were somehow able to directly link the burning to the loss of lives), it's not the pastor's fault, but rather the fault of the killers. If I write a book about, say, how much modern radio music is terrible and gangster rappers go out and kill the publishers of my book is it my fault that the publishers die? Of course not...it is the fault of the gangster rappers.
Finally, do Radical Muslims even need more reason to want to kill us? They already want to take over the world, kill all Americans, impose Islamic Rule everywhere, etc (hopefully this isn't a gross generalization, but you get my point even if it is one). Would the burning of a book really blow the gasket? I think not.
"I just hope the guy is stopped from doing it. We should stop him because lives may be lost."
I addressed the "lives will be lost" objection above. Stopping this man from burning the Koran would be a tremendous step backward for the rights of Americans in terms of free speech. Why should we not be able to burn the Koran and be able to, say, burn Twilight? This has obvious problems of favoring religion over non-religion, backing down because of potential threats, etc. Stopping this man from burning this book would be horrible.
"Radical Muslims will use this as propaganda! They'll recruit more terrorists!"
There's certainly no shortage of propaganda when we have Farfur (an Islamic version of Mickey Mouse) indoctrinating children to be suicide bombers and various other forms of propaganda. The idea that someone will use propaganda because we do something reeks of nonsense and certainly wouldn't apply to other situations. Imagine if we said, "We should stop drone attacks because they'll use this as propaganda," "We should stop using the phrase "The War on Terror" because they will use this as propaganda," or "We should stop airing The Price is Right because they will use this as propaganda against American capitalism."
We also risk a slippery slope argument when we say, "If we burn the book," x will happen when we have no good reason to suggest that x will happen.
The real problems here are that the media is blowing this out of proportion, we tolerate violent threats and want to back down when the potential of retaliation is amidst, and that we give way too much respect to religion.
If everyone drew pictures of Mohammad, burned Korans, and said, "You know what, free speech is important and we're not going to back down," it would be impossible for terrorism to even work and we'd be united in solidarity. I don't think that burning Korans is the way to go, but drawing pictures of Mohammad with a positive message attached and the support of moderate Muslims certainly is. Everyone Draw Mohammad Day was a great success.
I am a bleeding heart on this one.
ReplyDeleteI think that any act that could lead to hurting people does not justify the message. I think that there are more productive ways to arise at a solution with this issue. While I defend the right of free speech, I also think that people need to be aware of how their actions can be used to hurt innocent people. Who, by the way, are in hostile countries fighting a war that was founded on lies in the first place. One person is too many...
There are more intelligent constructive means of dealing with this issue. I do not support acts of brute disrespect that could endanger people. Exercising free speech is important.... But, what he is doing is selfish.
Justin,
ReplyDeleteFirst I want to compliment you on the blog. You prsent some well thought-out ideas.
Second, and to the topic at hand, I strongly disagree with burning the Koran for one simple reason: the mass burning of any book (or books) is really an example of human society at it's very, very worst. Books are meant to be read and cherished. Books enlighten. Books entertain. Books represent what's best in our society: the sharing of "stuff". Books are intellectualism at its finest. What's more, no book...outside of a large type copy of Steven King's "The Stand" falling on your head...ever has or ever will cause harm. It's the idiot humans who read books that actually cause harm.
George Carlin had a twist on this in one of his routines; he said "there are no bad words...there are bad thoughts, bad intentions..." and he was absolutely right. I'll take the liberty of extending his logic to books as a whole.
So why burn books? Because it's a hell of a lot easier to engage in a violent act against a binding of paper than it is to engage the people that wrote/like/sponsor that idea. The book becomes this kind of sick avatar for a bunch of chicken-shit sycophants who pretend to misdirect their rage.
My point in all of this? Burn no books, ever. Book burning is the lowest common denominator in anti-intellectual behavior out there, which is why is has been practices by the likes of Hitler, Mao, Mussolini, Stalin, Milosevic, etc.
Want to express a right to "free speech" about a particular book? Then get a copy of it, go the courthouse square, read it aloud and tell everyone who passes by why the book is full of crap. There ya go: free speech.
Regards,
- Steve Albert/Scranton PA
Note in the beginning, "I don't think he should burn a Koran because there is no positive message involved with this blasphemy and I don't support burning books...but if he wants to burn it (regardless of how pointless or purposeful the burning is), he certainly should be allowed to do it."
ReplyDeleteSuch a book burning event would not be helpful insofar as Islamic relations with Western democracies are concerned.
ReplyDeleteYes... Good point. A good old fashioned book burning, no matter what the book is, is never the answer. The image of it likens back to very dangerous times.
ReplyDeleteIf anything, This pastor at least has stirred a sleepy, passive American people and has required them to think and debate the Mosque issue. Our attentions are easily distracted by reality tv shows and the everyday tasks of life we face. Few people care to argue issues at the end of a 10 hour workday if it does not conflict with them at the moment. The book? in my opinion, let it burn. 20 "translated copies" will hardly deprive the world of it's teachings.
ReplyDeleteYes, he was allowed to do it, but this does not change the intent. He was not going to burn the Koran to question religion.. the man is a religious nut himself. He was going to burn it out of hatred and anger. Yes, he has the constitutional right to do so, but that does not really validate his childish actions. I can burn copies of the Holy Bible... but it really doesn't prove anything, or achieve anything, except for anger and radicalize the religious even more. Burning the Koran won't end Islam. Burning the Bible won't stop people from being Christians.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you say we cannot blame Terry Jones for violence created from the burning.. well, basically, I completely disagree. He KNEW it would upset Radical Islam. He KNEW what kind of actions would be taken. That's like saying George W. Bush is not responsible for the soldiers deaths just because he did not pull the trigger on the gun, or directly set off the bomb. All actions, especially one of radical/hate filled intent, do not go unanswered. We all know this from living in the world we do.
Also, on a side note, we should stop using the phrase War on Terror for the fact that it is bs in general. It is the War for Oil Using Terror
ReplyDelete"Also, you say we cannot blame Terry Jones for violence created from the burning.. well, basically, I completely disagree. He KNEW it would upset Radical Islam. He KNEW what kind of actions would be taken."
ReplyDeleteHow is this different from blaming abortion providers for provoking religious fanatics to violence? They "KNOW" that it will inflame hatred, so aren't they to blame for being murdered for performing abortions?
Do you think that cartoonists getting killed for making cartoons about Mohammed are to blame?
How about Muslim women who have acid thrown in their face for offending Muslim men by not dressing modestly enough and covering up completely?
Just because I say or do something that offends another does not give them license to use violence against me, and I should not be blamed because that person was unable to control themselves and not resort to violence. This is blaming the victim.
"That's like saying George W. Bush is not responsible for the soldiers deaths just because he did not pull the trigger on the gun, or directly set off the bomb."
I don't see this as analogous at all. In one example we have someone burning a book and exercising free speech rights. In the other example we have a world leader ordering the military into a violent engagement. I don't see the comparison.