Lawyer Smokes Pages From the Koran and Bible

Daehenoc writes "Thanks to a lawyer in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, we now know that the Bible makes a better smoke than the Koran. From the article: 'In the clip, titled "Bible or Koran - which burns best?", the professed atheist says burning religious books is no big deal and people need to get over it. "It's just a f---ing book," he says. "Who cares? It's your beliefs that matter. Quite frankly, if you are going to get upset about a book, you're taking life way too seriously."'

Comments

Am I the only one

[Deathnerd]

Who started singing Iron Maiden's "Holy Smoke" after reading this?

Re:Am I the only one

[mrsteveman1]

Some of us may have thought about it, or quietly hummed the tune, but yes i believe you're the only one who started signing.

Obligatory

[halber_mensch]

Holy smokes!

Doesn't understand

[Aladrin]

"He defended the stunt, saying basic freedoms, such as freedom of speech, should not be threatened simply because someone might be offended."

Yet another person doesn't understand freedom of speech.

He's perfectly free to say it. But he has to deal with the consequences. The government isn't saying a word about it. It's his peers and employer that are upset. And he'll face their wrath, as it should be.

Do I think he should be fired? No. What he did was thoughtless and inconsiderate, but it wasn't illegal and it wasn't on behalf of the school.

Re:Doesn't understand

[wisnoskij]

Well not necessarily.

I do not know how it works in the USA, but even in countries that have general freedom and specifically freedom of speech that is not necessarily true.

In Canada for example we have Freedom of speech, as long as we do not offend anyone.
But of course everyone always just quotes the first part and i do not think most people even realize that we actually do not even have a little freedom of speech.

Re:Doesn't understand

[Dishevel]

Canada dose NOT have freedom of speech.
If the government can come in and shut you up because "Someone" was offended. You do NOT have freedom of speech.
I can understand how Canadians may feel better about themselves by saying they have freedom of speech, but that dose not make it so.

Re:Doesn't understand

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes, it's a good idea to read someone's complete post before replying ...

Re:Doesn't understand

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when does the government trampling on our rights mean that we aren't SUPPOSED to have that right?

I guess this means American's don't have the right to privacy, the right to a trial and the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure? 'Cause last I heard, the US gov was doing all that and more.

Re:Doesn't understand

[blair1q]

So libel and death threats are protected speech in America?

No.

What happens is, you offend someone, they sue you, or call the police, and then you are in court (the physical manifestation of the government) defending yourself. And if the charge is true, you are punished for it. Not for speech, but for its effects, however intangible.

And the entire time that your case is in the hands of the government, you may be subject to a gag order preventing you from speaking to anyone but your lawyer and the judge about anything the court decides you should not discuss.

"Freedom of speech" is a concept relating to certain features of the law, not an absolute reality.

Re:Doesn't understand

[Hoi Polloi]

What, no smoking a Torah also?

Re:Doesn't understand

[PRMan]

Stop! You're offending hundreds of Canadians...

Re:Doesn't understand

[MachDelta]

Saying that Canada has freedom of speech "as long as we do not offend anyone." is a gross inaccuracy in my opinion. What the law actually states is that our freedom of speech is (emphasis mine) "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." That does not mean "offending someone" is against the law. It means that if someone offends you with something, you must prove in a court of law that they have overstepped the expected bounds of free speech in our society. Generally speaking, peoples right to freedom of expression ends where it begins to result in promoting violence and hatred towards others. Simply offending someone else with your opinion is not enough to have your freedoms restricted.

Re:Doesn't understand

[Dishevel]

That could work. But wouldn't I be ostrasized by /. for doing so?

Re:Doesn't understand

[Anonymous Coward]

His employers have no right to fire him unless he made his statement/presentation while on the job/on behalf of his employers. Similarly, your employer cannot fire you for going to gay bars or dancing contests. Obviously, assuming there was no contract explicitly stating he could be fired for such reasons.

Re:Doesn't understand

[Anonymous Coward]

Do I think he should be fired? No. What he did was thoughtless and inconsiderate, but it wasn't illegal and it wasn't on behalf of the school.

Well, four years ago some Muslim boys urinated on, spat on, and "smoked" a Bible. This was in a school in Australia, and last I heard they were expelled. So, maybe that would be par for the course. You may have missed the 2006 pee/fire/spit Bible incident since it didn't go global, so here it is: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/muslim-boys-urinated-on-bible/story-e6frg6nf-1111112640400

Re:Doesn't understand

[hitmark]

Comes as part of the bible, no?

Re:Doesn't understand

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

He's perfectly free to say it. But he has to deal with the consequences. The government isn't saying a word about it. It's his peers and employer that are upset. And he'll face their wrath, as it should be.

Nice idea. But if you look into the history of--just for the sake of argument--Nazi Germany, you'll find that especially in the early days the government itself rarely interfered or intervened against dissenters. If you tried to exercise your freedom of speech, you would simply have a squad of SA goons or the like accost you on the street or at your house. Government officialdom was rarely directly involved.

And yes, many of them would be your peers or indeed employers. In fact, that's probably the point of your post. Social and financial control can and should be exerted to stifle dissent. You are only as free as far as you can face the unpleasant consequences of being so. Funny how majorities and those with money never seem to have faces such repercussions isn't it?

Re:Doesn't understand

[yyxx]

Canada? QUT is in Australia.

In any case, even Canada protects religion and religious expression, and atheism is usually considered a religion for the purposes of such laws.

Re:Doesn't understand

[Mitchell314]

What's a good idea?

Re:Doesn't understand

[Anonymous Coward]

How many is that in Americans? I kid, I kid... don't hit me with the poutine.

Re:Doesn't understand

[VanGarrett]

In Canada for example we have Freedom of speech, as long as we do not offend anyone.

Seems like Canadian freedom of speech doesn't really cover the important part. Polite speech, almost by definition, doesn't need protection. Sort of misses the point, to protect the unoffensive.

Re:Doesn't understand

[Eraesr]

Yeah really good point.
Also, just because his views are that the Koran or the Bible are just books, it doesn't mean someone with other views is automatically a complete moron and idiot. While I do agree with him that people should relax when it comes to burning books (in fact, usually those that are burning books/flags/whatever have nothing constructive to say and are basically just real-life trolls who should be ignored), him pointing it out does not help. It doesn't change a thing and it's only like preaching to your own choir.

Re:Doesn't understand

[dpastern]

I hope they do fire him and he sues their ass off for wrongful dismissal. The person in question should be able to express his freedom of speech, and freedom of religious choice too. Just because some believe in God etc, doesn't mean that all others must do so as well. Freedom entails others to say "No, I do not believe in [replace with deity of choice]". If others don't like this, tough shit, perhaps they should have some respect for others freedoms and not try and shove their views down everyone else?

Dave

Re:Doesn't understand

[Anonymous Coward]

Not exactly the same. If it was Jews would just read out of bibles, wouldn't they?

Re:Doesn't understand

[hitmark]

I suspect it's a issue that doing so would be seen as accepting the claim related to jesus.

Making it a social/theological issue more then anything else.

Re:Doesn't understand

[jesset77]

Also, just because his views are that the Koran or the Bible are just books, it doesn't mean someone with other views is automatically a complete moron and idiot.

Actually, yeah. It kind of does. I mean, you can believe anything you want about the message enshrined in a holy book, but any people who get tied in a knot over the physical disposition of qurans or flags (I don't know anyone who cares about burnt bibles) are guilty of practicing a form of Idolotry even the Quran and the Bible themselves specifically forbid.

These books are simply objects, no more, no less. More importantly, if I burn a holy book, I'm burning my own property. I'm not burning down your house. I'm not murdering your children, stealing your food or hijacking planes to level your office buildings. I am lighting fire to an object I own, that I purchased with my money, and that money even went to fund the printing of more books or flags.

Whoever ascribes holiness to easily duplicable physical objects which they don't even possess either suffers from a potentially very dangerous dementia, or more likely than not they are "a complete moron and idiot" as you put it.

It's just a f---ing book

[blai]

I shall erase your social whatever number from our government database. It's just a f---ing entry in our database. No big deal.

Re:It's just a f---ing book

[jDeepbeep]

I don't think that's a good analogy. It would be more like, we are going to shred this piece of paper that your SSN is written on.

Re:It's just a f---ing book

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be excellent.

Re:It's just a f---ing book

[Sir_Lewk]

I'd pay you good money to do exactly that...

Never about the books

[drumcat]

It's always been the symbolism. I could wipe my ass with either book, and someone would get offended. It's just paper...
The thing is, if people are willing to believe in the whacked out nonsense contained in either book, why would anyone ever believe people wouldn't get pissed about burning them?

Re:Never about the books

[Phopojijo]

Agreed. You could burn a flag -- it's just cloth... but it will be taken as an assault against something other than polyester.

Similar example

[gmuslera]

take that green pieces of paper and burn it. Is just a f---in piece of paper, who cares? Is your belief that have a value what matters. Quite frankly, if you are going to get upset about a bunch of money, you're taking life way too seriously.

Re:Similar example

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that you can actually use those green pieces of paper for something, like an exchange for goods....

Re:Similar example

[dandart]

Since when was a religious text as valuable as money? It's not like you can feed a citizen on holiness now is it?

Re:Similar example

[Pandrake]

I sense that you are trying to be sarcastic, but I see it as a very apt substitution. Currency has no value other than what we assign it, just like books.

Re:Similar example

[fedtmule]

You are turning things upside down. People are upset, that he is burning his own personal copy of the Bible/Koran and that is just silly. If he burned another persons copy of the Koran/Bible, then by all means get upset.

If you decide to burn your own money, it would not make me upset. Not the slightest. Money are just I-Owe-Yours from the government. When you burn money, you resolve the government of it's obligation. So go burn all your own money, it will just mean I have to pay a tiny bit less in taxes.

Re:Similar example

[semiotec]

Actually, In Australia non-coin money is made of plastic, burning and smoking it would be considerably more toxic than burning books, and people will get quite upset about it. They are also mostly non-green, except for the hundred-dollar bill.

Re:Similar example

[PRMan]

I would argue that more people have been fed by Christianity than by excess money...

Re:Similar example

[dandart]

Oh, I forgot. Bread + Fish + Christianity = More Bread + More Fish, right? My bad.

Re:Similar example

[gmuslera]

A bible (or any of the other books for the other religions) have some use. Could be a first step for getting eternal life, gives you a community, could give some respect, all inside the people that believes in its value. And money can lose value pretty fast, like in Zimbabwe.

Re:Similar example

[digit1001]

Not really the same. I have no emotional attachment to a $100 bill. If it's yours, burn it and I won't protest. I can take that $100 to a store and exchange it for lots of things that may mean more to me, or may feed my children. If I take a load of (insert your preferred religious text here) to Target, I'm not going to be able to exchange it for pampers. Also, you burn a pile of money that you earned, that's your business. If I burn a copy of MY (insert your preferred religious text here), it tends to become the problem of groups that feel that the text, regardless of the cheap manufacturing that went into it, has some sacred significance to it as the word of god(s) (TM). I think a closer analogy would be burning a flag... it's just fabric after all...

Re:Similar example

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 funny

Re:Similar example

[Pandrake]

Had to think for a minute, maybe even retract my first reply to the parent of your reply, but... I can't remember; isn't there some federal statute about the only people who can burn money is the federal mint? Otherwise, I believe, it's illegal as far as destruction of federal property (ie, no, we don't own the script, we merely use it under the conditions imposed by the real owner - the US Treasury).

Re:Similar example

[Sir_Lewk]

Burning a bible (or any of the other books for the other religions) have some use. Could be a first step for getting a life, gives you a community, could give some respect, all inside the people that understand its value. And bibles lose their value pretty fast, like when you can get them for free by just calling a phone number.

Fixed that for you.

Re:Similar example

[digit1001]

Like I said, "I won't protest". I'm not going to speak for the US govt.

It appears you're correct on the legality of doing so though:

"this is a violation of Title 18, Section 333 of the United States Code, which says that “whoever mutilates, cuts, disfigures, perforates, unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, Federal Reserve Bank, or Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such item(s) unfit to be reissued, shall be fined not more than $100 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.” The law is enforced by the Secret Service."

http://www.freelawanswer.com/law/3175-3-law-4.html

Re:Similar example

[Pandrake]

Ya, thot so. Vague memory of being told, "That's illegal," when someone burnt a bill in protest or for a magic act or something.

Thanks for not taking my mention as an argument against your stance, as I also do not speak for the US govt (tho as a citizen of the US, I can - the whole of the people thing).

Plus, I feel better about my other reply to the parent, er, maybe gp, post when I said that burning money is as "wrong" as burning a book - both only have value that we assign to them, rather than an intrinsic value. Merely, we've assigned a very high value to a publication if it's money (so much so it is, indeed, illegal to burn it and therefore any exception to First Amendment protection is probably handled on a case by case basis).

As you state, Flag burning is more apt as a comparison to book burning (especially that it's codified by a 1989 Supreme Court ruling).

Ya, I've been all over different discussions about the whole 451 acts lately, being a literary buff and all; which is the only reason I now know that about flag burning laws.

Re:Similar example

[mpeskett]

Fed by religious adherents, yes (and non-believers too, of course). Fed by the holy text itself? Not so much.

Also, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bObItmxAGc

(summary: Christianity could feed a lot more people if the Pope were to follow Matthew 19:21-24 a little more literally and sell his big house, or at least a little of of his hoard of treasure)

Re:Similar example

[Hector's Dog]

If you burn a bible you can go to the library or church and read another, if you burn $5,000 you cant go to the bank and get another $5,000.

Burning books?

[shimage]

I had thought that burning books of any kind was in poor taste, but I guess it doesn't really matter if the books are still in print ...

Re:Burning books?

[horza]

There was a ridiculous piece in the UK newspaper the Guardian which tried to compare that American preacher burning copies of the Koran he had bought to Hitler burning selected 'banned' books nationwide. Burning your own books is not a problem, burning other people's is.

There is nothing sinister about burning books, in fact they are a perfect source of fuel. From plagues to depressions, books have been burned through necessity. With modern printing on demand, the symbolism is now almost irrelevant as you can burn a million copies and you are not going to deprive the world of said literature. Another million can easily be printed.

The lawyer is making the same point about the Koran as defenders of the Danish cartoonist who pictured Muhammad. Feel free to have your beliefs, but if he is not of the same religion then why should he have to share yours?

Phillip.

Re:Burning books?

[shimage]

Showing up at a funeral wearing nothing but a bikini, or crapping your pants in a crowded bus are not "sinister" per se, but I would argue that they are nonetheless still in poor taste.

Only rss?

[Anonymous Coward]

I came here from my RSS feed, but for some reason, it's not showing up on my main page. Yes, I have Idle enabled. Anyone else have that happening?

Re:Only rss?

[marcobat]

i think someone smoked you main page

FSM

[Anonymous Coward]

The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster would have won the smoke contest. In fact, his noodlines aproves the use of the gospel as smoking paper.

Re:FSM

[Anonymous Coward]

His Holiness also recommends to print the gospel solely on natural, untreated Hemp paper. So his followers always have a good smoke handy, and to everyone else, it's "just a book".

Freedoms

[Anomalyx]

Being a Christian myself (a relatively logical one, as well), here's my point of view.
He bought it, it's his book, so he's free to burn it. I personally would never burn a Bible, and I don't like even the idea of Bibles being burned, but as long as he's doing it to his own property, he's free to. To me, it's the words that matter, not the paper. As long as I have the words, he can burn as much paper as he's willing to buy. I can disagree with him, but that's all I can do. No more.

He's right in that "it's just a book.. get over it". However, I do hope he's not doing it with the purpose of taunting, because I would view that as malicious. If he wants to burn books because it makes him feel good, that's fine. It's doing it with the sole purpose of mocking others that creates an issue. I wouldn't do that to a Muslim's Koran, despite how much I disagree with them.

Re:Freedoms

[Galestar]

+1 Sudden Outburst of Common Sense

Re:Freedoms

[Xiver]

I think the vast majority of Christians feel this way, myself included. However with any group, religious or otherwise, a few people can skew the perception of the whole group and no matter what you or I say, people will believe whatever they want to believe.

Re:Freedoms

[RossumsChild]

"I personally would never burn a book, and I don't like even the idea of books being burned."

Fixed That For You.

Re:Freedoms

[Tetsujin]

Being a Christian myself (a relatively logical one, as well), here's my point of view.

He bought it, it's his book, so he's free to burn it. I personally would never burn a Bible, and I don't like even the idea of Bibles being burned, but as long as he's doing it to his own property, he's free to. To me, it's the words that matter, not the paper. As long as I have the words, he can burn as much paper as he's willing to buy. I can disagree with him, but that's all I can do. No more.

Well, sure, but that's not really the point.

An act like burning someone's holy book, by itself, is meaningless. You make a fire, keep yourself warm, or whatever. But this isn't being done in a vacuum. It's being done as a little hate-rally, and the message of hate is, judging from how well this whole stupid thing has been publicized, being propagated to the subjects of that hate.

I think it's a reprehensible way to act. Americans should be better than this. Christians should be better than this. So hell yes, I will heap scorn on these ignorant fools for burning "just a book".

Re:Freedoms

[Anomalyx]

Didn't occur to me to say it that way, but yes, now that you say it, that would hold true for me. Especially if it is ever forced upon somebody.

Re:Freedoms

[portablejim]

I am a Christian as well, and although the Bible should not be burned, it is his copy to do as he likes with it.

The reaction that I have towards what he has done, so it pray for him

Re:Freedoms

[randyleepublic]

What's so bad or wrong with hating evil? The net result of religion is an increase in human suffering. That's evil. I hate evil. I hate religion. I express my hatered by burning their evil manual. One less evil manual, a tiny bit less evil in the world. Plus, those whose thinking is not well considered may, observing the inconsistent and illogical responses of the religiously brainwashed may have an awakening.

Re:Freedoms

[vegiVamp]

My word, it's a christian, and a sensible one, at that. Weren't you lot extinct ?

In all seriousness, though, I wish you and your peers would open up a bit more often and tune down the fundies. You're supposedly the majority, but all we ever hear or see are the idiots.

Re:Freedoms

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a buddhist (atheist buddhist, to be precise).

Anyone can burn as many buddhist texts as they like (beware, the tipitaka is a lot of paper. In response to the nutter from Florida, I took on of my own buddhist books, threw it on the ground, stepped on it and guess what? The words were still the same.
It's like when the Taliban blew up the statues. Apart from the historic value, it's still a chunk of rock shaped by craftsmen.
So go ahead, destroy, "desecrate", burn or whatever buddhist stuff. Here's a budget tip: draw a buddha cartoon and crumple it, while swearing (not too loud, your mother might soap your mouth).

Re:Freedoms

[eblonk]

It's sensible people in general that seem extinct. But here's my theory: there are a lot of closeted smart people from all walks of life. Yet, it is so unpopular to be smart, informed, let alone be an intellectual, most people refrain from coming out and act dumb. We need equal rights for people who use their brains.

Re:Freedoms

[smi.james.th]

He's right in that "it's just a book.. get over it". However, I do hope he's not doing it with the purpose of taunting, because I would view that as malicious. If he wants to burn books because it makes him feel good, that's fine. It's doing it with the sole purpose of mocking others that creates an issue. I wouldn't do that to a Muslim's Koran, despite how much I disagree with them.

While I agree with you in principle, I think that the act of burning holy books is usually intended in a very religiously intolerant light, if not as an incitement to violence. Here in South Africa, a court interdict was issued recently against a Muslim cleric who was going to burn Bibles in response to the chap in the States a while ago, which I agree with, personally, no-one should make public displays about how much they hate someone else's religion (or race or whatever else for that matter).

Re:Freedoms

[jesset77]

But this isn't being done in a vacuum. It's being done as a little hate-rally, and the message of hate is, judging from how well this whole stupid thing has been publicized, being propagated to the subjects of that hate.

While I couldn't easily find a definition for the idiom "hate rally", I'm fairly certain that a primary ingredient would be a demonstration of Hate. Am I wrong?

You might make the argument that the southern minister who started this controversy was planning to hold a "hate rally", I won't speak to that. But this article is about Australian Lawyer Alex Stewart posting a video where he personally burns both a Quran and a Bible, with no obvious agenda of hate whatsoever. Merely to demonstrate that these books are physical objects and not sacred icons.

Your equating that action with a "hate crime" is about as shortsighted as equating PETA's videos of beef slaughter houses as a hate crime against the Hindu religion, who believes cattle are sacred.

Or perhaps I should take footage from the IIS and post a video on youtube saying "See? It's round". Would that be hate speech against The Flat Earth Society?

Is this post hate speech because I am disagreeing with you, re-iterating the facts at hand and illustrating via analogy that your sacred opinions are inconsistent with common sense? I won't be upset if you fail to see eye to eye with me, we can agree to disagree as long as we each believe the other has a good view of our case (and continue debating until that has been achieved) but I don't want to participate in a culture that equates dispassionately burning one's own property and posting a video of it, or difference-of-opinion in general as a "reprehensible action" on par with plane hijacking and mass murder.

Re:Freedoms

[jesset77]

While I agree with you in principle, I think that the act of burning holy books is usually intended in a very religiously intolerant light, if not as an incitement to violence. Here in South Africa, a court interdict was issued recently against a Muslim cleric who was going to burn Bibles in response to the chap in the States a while ago, which I agree with, personally, no-one should make public displays about how much they hate someone else's religion (or race or whatever else for that matter).

Desecrating holy objects has already been thoroughly studied under the auspices of Flag Desecration. Normally citizens of a country who burn their own flag in protest are not expressing hatred for their country, but unrest against the established government and policies of the country and with unquestioning adherence to an ideal that is not being lived up to.

It is a sign that patriotism has lost sight of common sense when allegience to a flag is considered more important than the quality of life of it's citizens. So to, it is clear that adherents to a religion have lost all perspective when burning copies of their book, drawing cartoons of their mascot, etc are seen as greater crimes against them than murder.

In short, unless you are spewing bile and using the stunt to draw attention to your bile, the act of desecration or blasphemy itself is not an act of hate, only an act of sensational protest. Anyone who brings up hate crimes are only trying to justify their outrage. The act of desecration is meant to highlight the fact that the offended party's priorities are dangerously skewed. When they react wrathfully, they are helpfully affirming that accusation.

Islam needs to learn what the rest of the internet figured out long ago: Simply don't feed the trolls. Grow a thicker skin and move on with your life. Christians honestly don't care if you burn a bible. And why should they? Athiests don't care if you burn On the Origin of Species, you can buy up or donate to a bonfire as many copies as you'd like, make any sort of dance that you want, as long as you are not absconding our copies to burn or depriving a jurisdiction if it's tax-funded library, then it's just your loss.

You'll also find not many people are doing that. Again, why would they? They will provoke zero irrational reactions from athiests. Christian bibles get burned sometimes, but again, who cares? They don't care, they have plenty. Invented the printing press and all. Lots of people hate Christianity and they know it, but they "turn the other cheek" and that's a good strategy.

Burning the Quran? That evokes irrational reactions. Since no people are harmed, no property is stolen and nothing of real consequence is transpiring, then the reaction itself is uncalled for and more people will try it in order to protest the reaction itself. This is one of the core things people (including myself) do dislike about Islam: putting idolotry ahead of the quality of human life.

That is wrong. I don't care if it's wrong because some people don't think before they react, or if it's wrong because a religious culture trained you to behave that way. Whatever the reason, it is wrong and I value my right to protest against it. To highlight it and to illustrate it.

Re:Freedoms

[Dhalmo]

I believe that the expression of disdain manifested itself in the burning of religious texts needs to be acknowledge as a reaction to the overwhelming presence of religion in our world. Extreme actions always arise as a counterbalance to other extreme actions, and in today's media connected world these actions are widely viewed and commented on. I also believe that religion is no sacred cow, and should be subjected to the same standards or rigor and inquiry as any other human endeavor, and if in that process some are offended so be it. We should never stiffle free expression or inquiry for the sake of preserving the emotional needs of others, else we risk a form of censorship so damaging it could stiffle our progress as a species for centuries. This type of extreme expression needs to be defended against the oncoming wave of laws designed to prevent "hate" speech, when in reality they are masquerading as censors.

Re:Freedoms

[smi.james.th]

In short, unless you are spewing bile and using the stunt to draw attention to your bile, the act of desecration or blasphemy itself is not an act of hate, only an act of sensational protest.

Protest against what? Why would you need to burn Qurans or Bibles to protest? You're throwing up a straw-man here, Islam isn't the problem, it's some of the people who profess to practise it. Look back in history, and you'll find that Christians were not so different a few hundred years ago from what the stereotypical Muslim is now.

Someone needs to stop the hate. Burning the holy book of a faith or group of people that you disagree with on some ground or other isn't likely to make them your friends, it's only likely to stoke whatever fire there was even more.

Burning the Quran? That evokes irrational reactions. Since no people are harmed, no property is stolen and nothing of real consequence is transpiring, then the reaction itself is uncalled for and more people will try it in order to protest the reaction itself. This is one of the core things people (including myself) do dislike about Islam: putting idolotry ahead of the quality of human life.

That is wrong. I don't care if it's wrong because some people don't think before they react, or if it's wrong because a religious culture trained you to behave that way. Whatever the reason, it is wrong and I value my right to protest against it. To highlight it and to illustrate it.

Muslims regard the Quran very differently to the way Christians regard the Bible. You're right, to us it is just a book (speaking as a Christian myself), and the burning thereof would likely offend most Christians, but it would be unlikely to drive us to a frenzy of whatever it is that drives some Muslims to do the things they do.

Your comments about Muslims are quite a generalization. The trait that you refer to tends to be more characteristic of Muslims originating in the Middle East. Muslims from elsewhere (I'm thinking specifically Indonesia, I have some Muslim friends from that part of the world) don't tend to be as militant. Nevertheless, I stand by what I said. If you're burning Qurans you know it will get up the Muslims' skins, you're aware that they're irrational about it. I'm not condoning whatever their reactions may be, but what I am saying is "you asked for it". Why did you do it in the first place?

I re-iterate: The hate needs to stop somewhere.

Re:Freedoms

[jesset77]

Protest against what? Why would you need to burn Qurans or Bibles to protest?

You normally protest in order to draw attention to a certain situation which you find unacceptable, in order to influence public opinion, or change government policy.

Since Government policy seems pretty level headed about the matter (people aren't being arrested for posting these videos, for example) in this case it's pretty clear we are talking about swaying public opinion.

So, protest against what? Well, how about the cultural climate where our freedom of speech is being thrown under the bus to placate a backwards and murderous culture. Do I imply "all Muslim people" when I say "murderous culture"? Not so much, but more along the lines of "whichever Muslim people grow murderous at my burning a copy of their texts". Or picket with death threats to Obama because some southern preacher said that maybe he'd burn Qurans and then he never got around to it. Or try to extradite Mark Zuckerberg on capitol charges because some subscribers of his website drew cartoons of Mohammed. You get the picture.

Your comments about Muslims are quite a generalization. The trait that you refer to tends to be more characteristic of Muslims originating in the Middle East. Muslims from elsewhere (I'm thinking specifically Indonesia, I have some Muslim friends from that part of the world) don't tend to be as militant.

My comments may sound like a generalization, but my point is more specific than you might perceive. My beef (and I suppose most people agree with me) is not with any arbitrary person, community, mosque or family who say "we are muslim" and sit down to read the Quran. But solely with the ones who stand back up and throw bricks because I've burnt my Quran. Or because someone makes a doodle of a man in a turban and labels it "Mohamed". Or those people who come out of nowhere to blow up a bus or a plane .. but I'm venturing to guess that the idolaters are the first in line to support the jihadists.

So I don't care about whether you live in the middle east, in indonesia, in australia, in the US, I just care how you behave. And if you behave as though the binding of my copy of your book is more valuable than my life or anyone's, then it is worth it for me to behave as a moderate asshole and troll you in order to out you (and your congregation and your community and your leaders, as the case may be) as militant douchbags and a danger to whatever "peaceful international cooperation" we're all trying to achieve.

If there are any moderate Muslims working for peace (maybe in indonesia?) then they're not going to care that some hillbilly burned a stack of Qurans. The hillbilly will have less to shout about, and fewer people listening to him if you don't shout yourself. Unfortunately, a vocal subset of Muslims are intolerant of criticism, and possibly intolerant of absolutely any value set besides their own. Perhaps they claim to support peace and claim to tolerate other people's views when visiting our countries, but when the tables are turned they execute people in many of their own countries just for not sharing their beliefs.

That is precisely why they are uptight about burning the Quran. For those who feel that way, all talk of peace is just a pretense and they view us merely vermin infidel who aren't fit to look upon sacred copies of the holy book, let alone to damage it. These are wolves in sheeps clothing and I support doing none more than to taunt them out of their disguise to be seen for what they are.

Re:Freedoms

[smi.james.th]

So I don't care about whether you live in the middle east, in indonesia, in australia, in the US, I just care how you behave. And if you behave as though the binding of my copy of your book is more valuable than my life or anyone's, then it is worth it for me to behave as a moderate asshole and troll you in order to out you (and your congregation and your community and your leaders, as the case may be) as militant douchbags and a danger to whatever "peaceful international cooperation" we're all trying to achieve.

Or just don't behave moderately assholeishly, and don't burn the book. Just leave the Muslims alone, then they'll leave you alone.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not a Muslim, but all the flak that is directed at them ticks me off. I, for one, consider the fact that they take their faith so seriously a good thing.

I don't condone their demands about Zuckerberg, for example, or threatening Obama with death (although threatening to kill the American President is hardly a new thing), on the contrary, those things are unacceptable. But so is burning Qurans. If we want ultimately to be able to co-exist in a civil manner, then the civility needs to start with someone, the uncivilised behaviour needs to start somewhere. Moderate asshole trolls will just aggravate the problem.

Re:Freedoms

[jesset77]

If we want ultimately to be able to co-exist in a civil manner, then the civility needs to start with someone, the uncivilised behaviour needs to start somewhere.

Second sentence has the wrong number of negatives in it, I'm going to assume you meant "The *civilized behavior needs to start somewhere" or "The uncivilized behavior needs to end somewhere".

In either case, I agree. Someone needs to be the better man, am I right? So how about we start with: I pledge not to hijack any planes, bomb any train stations, or make any death threats of any kind. Fair enough? I don't seek to end the lives, or even the livelihoods, of any other law abiding peoples of any nation. I respect human life.

I'll go one better: I promise not to get upset if people desecrate their own property, or draw absolutely any illustrations they want. I value my freedom of speech which means I'll defend anyone's freedom of speech. You can write essays about, or draw cartoons of, Obama, Zuckerburg, or myself being hanged or stoned or whatever. I won't care until/unless you are protesting your local government to make these things happen, or working with the consulate to try to have people extradited and killed.

There is a line to be drawn between these behaviors where one side of the line represents violent acts which seek to endanger human life, and the other side of the line represents strongly worded, yet still civilized speech. It demonstrates a lack of perspective if you equate these things. You say I'm an asshole if I burn a Quran, or if I advocate doing so. I'm having a debate with you so I'll acknowledge your words and try to counter them. But you'll do little more than issue the same admonishment to Muslim countries for officially executing non-believers just for being non-believers. Of course they are not having a debate with you, could care less what you have to say, and heads will continue to roll.

So in a way you probably did not intend, you (and the many people who share your position) are essentially promoting violence over speech, by not properly disambiguating the two. Sensibilities and superstitions are never more valuable than Life, Liberty and reasonable levels of safety.

And please don't go back to gnawing the bone of desecration as a threat. Tons of people burned CD singles of Achey Breaky Heart when it got too much air time in the early nineties, but Billy Ray's life was never in danger, contrast with Salman Rushdie during the same time period.

Re:Freedoms

[smi.james.th]

Second sentence has the wrong number of negatives in it, I'm going to assume you meant "The *civilized behavior needs to start somewhere" or "The uncivilized behavior needs to end somewhere".

You're exactly right, apologies, don't know how that mistake slipped through.

You say I'm an asshole if I burn a Quran, or if I advocate doing so. I'm having a debate with you so I'll acknowledge your words and try to counter them. But you'll do little more than issue the same admonishment to Muslim countries for officially executing non-believers just for being non-believers.

If you burn a Quran, you're only a moderate asshole. Executing non-believers makes you an extreme asshole, and I denounce those behaviours much more strongly. Unfortunately, I'm in no position to do anything more.

So in a way you probably did not intend, you (and the many people who share your position) are essentially promoting violence over speech, by not properly disambiguating the two. Sensibilities and superstitions are never more valuable than Life, Liberty and reasonable levels of safety.

I'm not terribly sure what you mean by this statement. I'm in no way saying that superstitions are more valuable than life, etc, and on the whole, I completely agree with you. The Muslims who do things like that (and other radicals following whatever cause, for that matter) are complete assholes and they shouldn't do the things they do. My point is that burning Qurans to protest against that is at best useless, because it's not going to make them stop, and at worst offensive to the non-offending Muslims who still value their holy book. So while anyone who wants to burn holy books I suppose has a right to do it but why are they doing it in the first place? It's only going to cause more problems. A more civilised and more effective way of protesting should be found.

One more great reason to make paper from

[Phizzle]

HEMP!

Reminds me of something...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://holyrollersshop.com/

Hateful

[jlf278]

First off, it's poor taste to burn books in general. More importantly is the context. This guy is just a narrow-minded jerk. I guess if it doesn't upset HIM, it's no big deal? The problem for me is that most burning of religious texts is done out of hate and spite. They are done to threaten a religious group and demonstrate a hostility that goes beyond what I find acceptable.

Re:Hateful

[Urza9814]

But of course, two wrongs don't make a right. Yes, the people burning the books are assholes. But the people getting all pissed off about it are no better. Don't feed the trolls.

Re:Hateful

[jesset77]

This guy is just a narrow-minded jerk.

OMG, why must you be so intolerant? You just hate all atheists and spread your bigotry over the internet, don't you? I hope your employers figure out who you are and fire you and if some fundamentalist atheists hunt you down and murder you then your family can have my trite condolences.. I mean I would never condone such behavior, nod wink, but you really would do better watching what you say with the crazies out there. Not that I support them of course, I'm just sayin'. Quit with the hate-mongering.

Re:Hateful

[jlf278]

I'm only intolerant of the "hate-mongering" you yourself rail against. The priest that started this whole kurfuffle is the one hate mongering. I'm not sure what my disapproval of his actions has to do with atheists. You lost me on that. I gladly admit that the whole omnipotent creator thing doesn't make much sense and I have no idea what's actually in the koran, but both points are irrelevant here. Burning a Koran for the sake of demonstrating your hate of Islam is no different to me than burning a cross on your lawn while yelling for black people to go back to africa or painting swastikas on your car.

The atheist lawyer is not making a demonstration of hate, but I still think he's a jerk. Would I punch him in the face? no. would i want something bad to happen to him? no. But I would like to see him recognize that people have the right to be offended by, well, anything they want. You shouldn't write off people's feelings just because you don't understand them. I'm not being intolerant, the lawyer is. He cannot accept that other people's views may be just as valid as his own. That's what intolerance is - the inability to accept (or at least allow) that other people's views may be just as valid as yours despite differences and conflicts. The priest and the lawyer are demonstrating intolerance. If I am intolerant of their narrow-mindedness...well I'm not sure how that's such a terrible thing I should be fired and murdered.

On a side note, I used to have a friend who hated when people threw her stuffed animals on the floor. Even though she obviously knew they had no emotions and couldn't feel pain, it bothered her to see them treated poorly. For the life of me, I couldn't understand what sparked her reaction. I could have thrown them offer her couch and stepped on them without a second thought. However, I didn't, and I certainly didn't punt them across the room to show her how wrong and backwards she was. Instead, I accepted that her feelings were valid because I respected her. From that point on, I never 'mistreated' any stuffed animal in her presence.

On the off chance I haven't made myself evidently clear, I'm not saying that the world should stop eating cheeseburgers because some people are vegan. I'm just saying they shouldn't hold animal slaughter rallies where none of the meat etc. is put to good use and the sole purpose is to demonstrate hatred towards veganism.

Re:Hateful

[jesset77]

Hello, there. Well, the article and the thread are about the Australian not the priest, so I am for one focusing there.

The priest and the lawyer are demonstrating intolerance. If I am intolerant of their narrow-mindedness...well I'm not sure how that's such a terrible thing I should be fired and murdered.

Except that the lawyer was none more than intolerant of the narrow-mindedness of populist Islam. I'm not sure how that's such a terrible thing that he should get fired (as has happend) and murdered (as has been threatened).

On a side note, I used to have a friend who hated when people threw her stuffed animals on the floor.

For me, the word "Her" stuffed animals is a hugely important issue, here. Perhaps she anthropomorphs these dolls and by doing this you are abusing her (admittedly imaginary) friends. If nothing else, you are potentially damaging her property.

Then the issue is, does your friend have the right to issue death threats against the cartoon "Happy Tree Friends"? That show involves black comedy and incredibly twisted things happening to stuffed animals. Do her sensitivities mean that the show has no right to be on the air? That the producers are assholes, should be ashamed, ought to have their lives ruined?

I guess the only material difference between your friend's sentimentality towards plushies and Islam's hangups toward idolotry is that only one of those groups have nuclear weapons and a history of recreational genocide. This is most likely the only reason that Happy Tree Friends remains on the air to this day.

Re:Hateful

[jlf278]

Certainly the Australian lawyer did not deserve to be fired, hurt or penalized in any way - and I've never indicated otherwise. I still think he was a jerk in not respecting the feelings of those who deserve it. Like you, i have a much lower opinion for those who issue death threats or mistreat someone for voicing their opinion in a lawful manner. Yes there are Muslims who, for lack of a better word, are bat-shit crazy and cannot hold a rational dialogue. To place their considerations in high regard would be equally bat-shit crazy. However, there are also Muslims that deserve respect and admiration. There are no end of TV shows with dark humor that offend a great deal of people - many of them I enjoy. I don't see the problem with these because they are intended for a target audience that finds them entertaining. The Australian lawyer's target audience was the religiously devout whom he was directly offending. Another good analogy is PETA - they are very much up in other people's business about respecting PETA's views where PETA (IMO) needn't be concerned. While animals should never be abused, PETA's idea of abuse is often quite liberal. Some of their members waged a campaign against Foie Gras in Philadelphia and elsewhere. I support the foie gras producers that endured PETA's harassment, while producing foie gras for the income it provided them and the enjoyment it gave their customers. My point is I'm not sure what practical benefit is gained by burning religious texts. I think his message would have been appropriate if he had not torched any religious texts. Obviously his message would have been far less publicized in that case, so I can see making the argument that burning the koran and bible was done for that practical effect...

it is 21st century - what about holy ebooks!?

[Anonymous Coward]

While people are still reading dead tree books...

Wonder what are people attitudes toward (oops) deleting a holy e-book?

Do you use permanent delete, so it does not land in a trash can/recycle bin?

What is an attitude towards burning of a usb drive with a holly e-book?

Re:it is 21st century - what about holy ebooks!?

[Tetsujin]

Relevant XKCD

True

[atisss]

From all the bibles, the best is Russian Orthodox, as they print on really thin paper.

Just some knowledge from my study years :)

Of course the bible is better

[Eggbloke]

It's made out of that cheapy paper so it burns easily.

Book Burning = Destruction Of Knowledge

[TwinkieStix]

Before the printing press, the duplication of data was a tedious, expensive and error-prone process. Burning books represented the destruction of knowledge. Countless volumes of data have been lost to all time at the hand of ancient book burnings. Today, we look back on every book burning as an act of ignorance. While I agree with the bulk of the comments that state, "who cares, it's just a book", I still feel upset when I see people exercising their right to destroy their own property (and whatever permanent knowledge it contained) even though I know there are an infinite number of copies of that knowledge now contained in digital media.

I just hope we don't reach a time where the mass-destruction of knowledge becomes possible again.

Re:Book Burning = Destruction Of Knowledge

[Xiver]

I don't know what you're talkinga bout we've always been at war with Eastasia.

Re:Book Burning = Destruction Of Knowledge

[horza]

Very good retort. However, the governments' inability to shut down The Pirate Bay or Wikileaks is a healthy sign we are not yet headed down that dystopian future.

Phillip.

Hypocrite

[Guppy06]

"burning religious books is no big deal and people need to get over it."

If it's "no big deal," there was no reason to do it to begin with. There are cheaper ways to get rolling paper.

Rather, to him it is a big deal: it's a pulpit on which to stand and say "It's no big deal."

Re:Hypocrite

[horza]

I think you are in the minority. Most of us think it is no big deal that he thinks it is no big deal. He will probably think that it is no big deal that you do think it is a big deal about him thinking it is no big deal. And you are just going to have to deal with that.

Phillip.

I'm sorry, pal

[melted]

There's no way to be "christian" and be "logical" at the same time. Christianity (and most other religions) by definition requires you to suspend logic and believe in the outdated mythology written by unwashed, barely literate savages approximately 1900 years ago (50 years _after_ the death of Christ), and since then creatively rewritten a few times to suit head honchos of the various sects. You believe in something you, again by definition, can't observe or confirm the existence of. That pretty much destroys your claim at possessing "logic".

Re:I'm sorry, pal

[Anonymous Coward]

You believe in something you, again by definition, can't observe or confirm the existence of. That pretty much destroys your claim at possessing "logic".

So... inductive logic, which is, by definition, tending towards but not absolute confirmation of the truth of a proposition, is also not logic. Nice to see the bar kept high.

Re:I'm sorry, pal

[Anomalyx]

This is the same attitude that you're criticizing. I say "I believe this, but you can believe what you want", and all you can say is "you're illogical and wrong". This makes you no better than the Christians who lack logic and have no idea what they're talking about. They make the Christians who do know what they're talking about look bad, just like you make the "scientific origin" crowd look bad. I'm sure that some of them are genuinely seeking truth, but all you're doing is throwing unsupported blabber on the wall and hoping something sticks.

I'd love to get into a scientific debate about the topic but this is not the place, nor are you actually looking for answers. You've decided your answer already and are sticking to it, so a debate would be absolutely pointless. Let's just say you won, so there won't have to be any more useless posts, k?

Re:I'm sorry, pal

[Son of Byrne]

I call that passive aggression. He had a point, you know, regarding logic and unfounded beliefs. Unfortunately, no one can actually "win" the argument as there is no way to prove one side or the other (you can't prove the existence of fairies and I can't disprove their existence either). I guess what it boils down to is that you also have decided your answer already and are sticking to it, just like him.

Re:I'm sorry, pal

[melted]

Um, no. It is a fundamental rule of science to not take unobservable events and entities as truth. Religion is, at best, an unsupported hypothesis, with VERY long odds against it. And odds are getting slimmer by the day as science explains the world in greater detail, and uncovers the facts that directly contradict religious doctrines.

Re:I'm sorry, pal

[Anonymous Coward]

> There's no way to be "christian" and be "logical" at the same time

So says the person who tosses out a universal negative.

Re:I'm sorry, pal

[townimbecile]

It is a fundamental rule of science to not take unobservable events and entities as truth.

If you have your axiom, allow him his. When someone claims to be logical, the implication is that their machinery for reasoning is intact. No logic can support its own axioms. You might claim that your construction is more generalizable or more minimal but you're demonstrating bad semantic training when you say that being logical is inconsistent with ascientific beliefs. And this would still be true even if you're reductio ad absurdum of Christianity didn't also preclude a belief in any ancient historical event, misidentify the social class of the authors of nearly all religious texts, or conflate the pseudo-scientific inferences made from theology with the essential theology itself.

Re:I'm sorry, pal

[melted]

His axiom is self-contradictory. He believes in one god, rejecting, without evidence the existence of all others, as well as Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, unicorns and so on. You can't have it piecemeal. If your axiom is to believe the fundamentally unobservable, then unicorns should exist as well.

Thou Shall Not Make False Idols

[sp3d2orbit]

The ten commandments, and similar passages in the koran, specifically prohibit the worship of material things via the "Thou Shall Not Make False Idols" commandment. Worshiping the bible, or the crucifix or the koran is not only stupid, its hypocritical by its own standards.

Re:Thou Shall Not Make False Idols

[Tetsujin]

The ten commandments, and similar passages in the koran, specifically prohibit the worship of material things via the "Thou Shall Not Make False Idols" commandment. Worshiping the bible, or the crucifix or the koran is not only stupid, its hypocritical by its own standards.

What's your point? Was there something here about worshipping the various holy books?

The relevant issue about burning someone's holy book isn't that you've removed one copy of the book from the world, it isn't (really) that you've destroyed something that is, by their standards, holy. It is a metaphor. It is a virtual slap in the face, an expression of the deepest loathing and utter disrespect for everything they believe in. It's like talking trash about someone's mom.

Re:Thou Shall Not Make False Idols

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, you can't talk to Christians nor Muslims about "idols", they just get pissed off and deny they have any.

Re:Thou Shall Not Make False Idols

[yyxx]

It is a metaphor. It is a virtual slap in the face, an expression of the deepest loathing and utter disrespect for everything they believe in. It's like talking trash about someone's mom.

So what? "Deepest loathing and utter disrespect" is what prominent Christians and Muslims express for atheists.

Atheists 'not fully human', says Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor

Pope Benedict, in a new encyclical released on Friday, said atheism was responsible for some of the "greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice" in history.

Many Muslim clerics demand the death penalty for atheism. And Christians and Muslims don't stop at loathing and disrespect: atheism is still being punished (occasionally by death) is Muslim nations, and it used to be severely punished in the West as well. You may say that you personally are more tolerant, but if you identify as a Christian or Muslim, you identify yourself with people like O'Connor, Pope Benedict and/or mainstream Muslim clerics.

People like you are apparently oblivious to the kind of intolerance and hatred your religious leaders spread in your name. If you view the Bible or Quran burning as a "virtual slap in the face", consider it a wakeup call to do something about intolerance and hatred in your own religion, because you seem to have dozed off in your complacency.

(And the GP's point is valid: many Christians and Muslims view burning of their holy books not just as a sign of disrespect against them, they view it as a religious offense; but that view is inconsistent with the prohibitions against idolatry.)

Re:Thou Shall Not Make False Idols

[Tetsujin]

It is a metaphor. It is a virtual slap in the face, an expression of the deepest loathing and utter disrespect for everything they believe in. It's like talking trash about someone's mom.

So what? "Deepest loathing and utter disrespect" is what prominent Christians and Muslims express for atheists.

Doesn't make it right.

I don't think there's a conflict with the idolatry rules, either. I always interpreted those rules to mean nothing else should come ahead of one's commitment to god. I don't agree with the idea that many people seem to have, that the rules of their faith should apply to everyone else, too... But that doesn't mean it's OK to be an asshole, either.

To me there's a much more significant conflict, which is that this kind of behavior is (as I see it) against Jesus's teachings. Love thy neighbor as thyself, do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. Of course these guidelines aren't exclusively Christian - really rules like that are just the most basic principles for people to be able to get along with each other - but to me those are among the most essential teachings of Christianity.

People like you...

You shouldn't be too quick to assume you know what sort of person I am. You might just get it wrong.

Re:Thou Shall Not Make False Idols

[yyxx]

To me there's a much more significant conflict, which is that this kind of behavior is (as I see it) against Jesus's teachings. Love thy neighbor as thyself, do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.

One of the basic tenets of mainstream Christianity is that the only way to salvation is to believe in Jesus; in different words, anybody who doesn't will be condemned to horrendous suffering for all eternity. How much more hateful and intolerant can a religious message get than that?

Neither atheism nor most other religions are like that; they believe that there are many ways to salvation, many ways to live a good and moral life.

Doesn't make it right.

It isn't "right" to offend people without cause. But given that Christians have preached hate and intolerance towards atheists for two millennia, often using the Bible as a symbol, atheists have ample cause. And burning the Bible expresses the right symbolism: atheists do not respect the book and refuse to submit to its authority any further.

The only reason that should offend you is if you do believe that atheists should submit to the authority of the Bible after all, which, of course, would make you intolerant.

You shouldn't be too quick to assume you know what sort of person I am. You might just get it wrong.

Based on your response, it's pretty clear I got it right.

Re:Thou Shall Not Make False Idols

[randyleepublic]

But I have the deepest loathing and absolutely no respect for everything they believe in. What, should I slap myself in the face, or the things I loathe?

Re:Thou Shall Not Make False Idols

[Anonymous Coward]

(Insightful? You must be joking...)

Oxford Dictionary (http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0961250#m_en_gb0961250):
Worship: show reverence and adoration for (a deity): the Maya built jungle pyramids to worship their gods

A bible is not a deity. A koran is not a deity. Don't remember ever hearing anybody calling a book his deity.

Sorry. You will have to find another way to get further with your agenda.

Should be easy to find something else hypocritical in religion. There is plenty of that in every aspect of human behaviour.

Re:Thou Shall Not Make False Idols

[Anonymous Coward]

"if you identify as a Christian or Muslim, you identify yourself with people like O'Connor, Pope Benedict and/or mainstream Muslim clerics."

If you identify as an American, you identify yourself with people like Barack Obama.
If you identify as a Russian, you identify yourself with Vladimir Putin.
If you identify as a Cuban, you identify yourself with Fidel Castro.
If you identify as a North Korean, you identify yourself with Kim Jong-il.

And if you identified yourself as a German in 1944, you identified yourself with the main villain of a lot of games, movies and comics.

Following your logic, I hereby identify myself only as myself. Thank you very much for enlighten me.

Re:Thou Shall Not Make False Idols

[jesset77]

I don't think there's a conflict with the idolatry rules, either. I always interpreted those rules to mean nothing else should come ahead of one's commitment to god.

Hey, I'm on board with that interpretation. However "one's commitment to god(sic)" is not in any way lessened when someone else burns a Quran. You've still got your Quran, and it's really not your right to tell me how to dispose of mine, up to and beyond burning it in protest. The only people who care are those who revere the text as a holy artifact. They see it either as a symbol of holiness, or a symbol of their virtual face being slapped. Same difference.

Think what damage is done to those who are offended? None, aside from the self-feeding outrage. What damage would be done if they turned the other cheek or changed the youtube channel? None. Other people will not run with the protest unless there is an irrational reaction to protest against. In the meantime, Islam countries execute people for holding non Islam beliefs. Why bother with your "two wrongs don't make a right" rhetoric when neither Atheists nor Muslims see a grand total of two wrongs?

Me fail English?

[Tetsujin]

Sometimes, it's a good idea to read someone's complete post before replying ...

Ooh, what a burn! I tried that, though, and this bit threw me for a loop...

"i do not think most people even realize that we actually do not even have a little freedom of speech."

Dang, tough one to untangle. I guess he's saying that Canada doesn't have freedom of speech, after all? If wisnoskij's point is that Canadians have freedom of speech (except not) then I think Dishevel is quite right to say that this isn't freedom of speech at all...

0 = 0

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing is accomplished here, folks. It's equally insensitive to be burning a book valued highly by certain individuals as it is to be fiercely objecting to people burning them as an absurd violation of their own views.

Smokin

[Anonymous Coward]

And later in the day after he finished his first oral argument, the judge asked him "what have you been smoking?"

preacher character

[GonzoPhysicist]

"What weights more: the Bible or the Bhagavad-Gita? Well worldy scholars and scientists have known for quite some time that the Bible outweighs the Bhagavad-Gita here by a pound to a pound and a half sometimes, outweighs the Talmud sometimes by three to four pounds, outweighs that mighty Koran sometimes by five to ten pounds. You think about that." -Mark

Future Cigar Aficionado Review.....

[IHC Navistar]

Results:

Bible: Mellow flavor with hints of Frankincense and Myrrh, with a rich oak finish reminiscent of a witch burning.

Koran: Mellow, earthy tones of camel, with smokey hints of burning tires and Semtex.

Russian Orthodox Bible: Rich smoke with strong Orwellian undertones and pronounced earthy and woody notes.

You CAN be fired

[Ohrion]

In many places in the USA, you CAN be fired for what you choose to do on your own time. You can be fired for just about anything. It's called At-will employment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

Re:You CAN be fired

[infaustus]

From your link: "Several exceptions to the doctrine exist, especially if unlawful discrimination is involved regarding the termination of an employee." Political discrimination is pretty much always unlawful. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is unlawful in many states.

Paper Cost

[oldmac31310]

Someone in the comments here said that bibles were printed on 'cheapy' paper. Actually that bible stock is not cheaper than other kinds of paper. Because paper costs are very much decided by weight a thin stock like that used in a bible might seem to be cheaper but considering the book itself is thousands of pages long it is relative. Also that bible stock is usually very strong despite its thinness compared to other forms of paper because bibles are generally seen as books which must last a long time and possibly endure daily use and abuse by Bible thumpers and God Botherers.

Personally, I'm against any book burning regardless of the subject matter. Sure, I might really feel like burning some Dan Brown novels (because they are poorly written rubbish!), but I never would. I think it is simply wrong. I think there are some past events in history that teach us as much.

artifact? really?

[mathfeel]

How is a common print run of the Bible and the Koran, found in any hotel room, a religious artifact? The administrators must be smoking something even holier.

religious discrimination

[yyxx]

He's perfectly free to say it. But he has to deal with the consequences. The government isn't saying a word about it. It's his peers and employer that are upset. And he'll face their wrath, as it should be.

He is an atheist. To an atheist, the Quran and the Bible are not holy and opposition to them is a moral duty because of the harm they have caused. Therefore, his actions are not just free speech, they are protected religious expression, making discrimination against him based on his actions illegal (Australia also has non-discrimination rules). (Furthermore, QUT seems to be a public university.)

What he did was thoughtless and inconsiderate,

Many religious offend each other; people are trying to sweep that under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist but that doesn't change the facts. To a Christian, Mohammed must logically have been an impostor and the Quran fake. To a Muslim, the holy trinity and the divinity of Jesus are fake and the Bible is corrupt. And both religions (and others) get away with heaping vitriol, lies, and committing highly offensive acts against atheists (and homosexuals, and others) who don't fit into their narrow world view, all under the cover of religious freedom and religious non-discrimination.

Freedom of religion and non-discrimination laws against religion have to protect you even if you offend other religions because offending other religions is pretty much inevitable. And atheism, for these purposes, is a religion.

Re:religious discrimination

[dpastern]

Amen! I have been saying just this for years.

Dave

more common use

[yyxx]

A more common use for Bibles and Qurans is for people to get money and power quickly by becoming preachers. Most commonly, this is then accomplished by preaching hatred and discrimination against a bunch of common minorities: atheists, homosexuals, "fornicators". And these people have their hate speech protected under freedom of religion and non-discrimination clauses.

turn the other cheek then

[Anonymous Coward]

"It is a virtual slap in the face" turn the other cheek then

works both ways

[yyxx]

However, I do hope he's not doing it with the purpose of taunting, because I would view that as malicious.

And why do you hope that? To many atheists, Christianity and Islam are intrinsically morally wrong and evil and therefore to be opposed. One aspect of that is expressing that the "holy" books are neither true nor deserve special reverence. Of course, such a burning is supposed to get your attention and it is supposed to make you think.

Religions are the same way. Conservative Christians often preach in highly offensive ways against atheists and "desecrate" things that to atheists are objects of reverence. Conservative Muslims go as far as advocating and requiring the death penalty for atheism; how much more "malicious" can you get? And both religions do that in part because they consider it their mission to spread their message and recruit atheists into their fold. Well, it works both ways.

Re:works both ways

[pfmoriarty7]

What do atheists hold as "objects of reverence"? (This isn't meant as a rebuttal, but is asked simply out of curiosity.) I am under the assumption (misunderstanding?) that because atheists don't believe in a higher being, they view everything on the same material plane. "To desecrate" means to make common things that are holy or sacred. What is holy without a god? What is sacred without a higher being to impart some meaning of sanctity? (Note that I'm not saying that atheists have no *beliefs*. I'm not speaking of the immaterial, because neither was the original article.)

Re:works both ways

[jesset77]

I am under the assumption (misunderstanding?) that because atheists don't believe in a higher being, they view everything on the same material plane.

Well, not all atheists are materialists or reductionists. Most consider that some things have more value than other things, normally based upon at least utilitarian principles if not sentimentality. For example, most atheists become upset when Christians or Muslims burn valuable objects like, say, members of their family.

The point is that the following pattern is being followed in today's religious politics:

* Person or Small Group A in culture B commits act C that culture D finds sacrilegious.
* Culture B quickly disavows the actions, and tries to distance themselves from person or small group A.
* Culture D slowly froths into an outrage, and doesn't believe easily targeted culture B, instead tarring them all with the same brush.

First, A = Osama Bin Laden and other terrorists, B = the worshipers of Islam, C = 9/11 + anthrax + Kenyan embassy + london railway bombing + spanish train bombing. All told, about 4,000 murdered. D = the Western World. We in the Western World are left to wonder how much Muslims really condemn those actions. So, as a result:

When A = a hillbilly US pastor or Australian lawyer, B = the Western World world, C = burning holy books, or even threatening to do so.. also drawings of Mohammed and Facebook groups and D = Muslims, then we end up in a position where the very people who have been trying to convince us that their religion does not make them psychopathic begin to behave psychopathically.

Yes, this is trolling. In fact, it is a great example of beneficial trolling. Burning a bound collection of personally owned pages with writing on it, or drawing a face and claiming it is a certain possibly fictional character (whether or not you then burn the drawing) are examples of harmless acts that incite hysterical, intolerant response. And not all of it is even from the muslims.

What I find most shocking about the reaction I've read so far in this controversy is that an equal number of non-muslims decry the burning of the Quran. Not the burning of the bible, but the Quran. People burn bibles all the time, so apparently that isn't a big deal. Why should it suddenly be reprehensible when it's the holy book of that particular religion?

Oh yes, because everyone is worried about how members of that particular religion will react.

Like how the president of the Islamic Association of Australia, Sheik Muhammad Wahid had to say "I urge my fellow Muslims to abide by the laws of this country and not take any action which breaks the law". You know, because normally we'd just kill the son of a bitch but, in this country doing so might wind up break a law, which our religion nigglingly requires us to obey. But, you know, if you don't interpret the religion as thoroughly as me then I guess I don't care what you do. I'm just urging.

you're probably not a Christian

[yyxx]

Based on polls about religious belief, it's clear that the vast majority of "Christians" (at least in the US and Europe) aren't Christians at all, they believe some tolerant New Age feel-good religion that has little to do with Christianity. (Islam seems to be the same way, but there is less data.) That's nice as far as it goes, and atheists generally don't have a problem with those kinds of pseudo-Christians.

But the religions and beliefs that the terms "Christianity" and "Islam" actually represent, are nowhere near as tolerant: the proselytize to convert atheists, they condemn atheism as immoral, and they often even call for atheism to be restricted or punished by law. Of course, atheists have a right to speak up against that, and according to atheist beliefs, they also have a moral obligation to speak up.

Proponents of Christianity (and Islam) are trying to be in a position where the vast crowds of moderate, tolerant people who use the names of those religions are used as a kind of "human shields" to deflect justified criticism and opposition to the intolerant and hateful interpretations of those religions. If tolerant Christians and Muslims don't want to be criticized by atheists, they need to come up with a way of referring to themselves that is different from the terms that the intolerant and hateful proponents of those religions use. That is not a problem that atheists can solve for these groups.

Re:you're probably not a Christian

[Anonymous Coward]

And whatever label these tolerant Christians and Muslims use to differentiate themselves will soon be getting used by the intolerant and hateful in order for them to get a foot in the door. It's like the Westboro Baptist Church, they aren't affiliated with any other Baptist church, they don't practice the same things as actual Baptists practice, but they use the name Baptist for their church.

But, the Bible and the Koran do teach tolerance. More tolerance than is shown by either religion. Paul said that Christians are not to force non-Christians to behave by Christian rules, but Christians are also not supposed to stand by and let others suffer through injustice etc. Jesus said 'Love your enemy'. I would say that's pretty tolerant.
Mohammad said that the Jews, Christians and Sabians are all saved in the Koran, and as Muslim scholars have pointed out none of them need to convert or anything to be saved.

It is difficult for either of those religions to have said all those things about atheists considering that atheism wasn't formally around then. I can't name one atheist by name who was ever mentioned, condemned or persecuted in either the Bible or the Koran ... can you? About the closest I can get to an attack on atheism is when the Bible says, 'The fool says in his heart that God is dead.' But, that's not even atheism, because God can't be dead if God never existed.

As for converting people, the Bible very specifically says that if someone rejects the Gospel they [the Christian] were to shake the dust from their feet and move along to the next place. That is hardly shoving it down anyones throat or being intolerant. The Bible does call on Christians to share the Gospel till everyone has heard it and had a chance to accept or reject it.

It seems to me that the tolerant and moderate people of those religions are the true believers and not the hate filled intolerant ones that want to kill anyone of another belief.

And as for atheists. There are plenty who I have met who are just as intolerant and hateful towards the religious and even agnostics who they claim are either 'insane' or 'stupid' etc. One of my friends had to shut down her blog because it was invaded by atheists who insisted on attacking and insulting everyone on there. The stupid thing was they assumed that everyone who went there was a Christian and kept attacking them even though the people attacked included Muslims, Buddhists, agnostics, Hindus and other religions. My friend is from Malaysia by the way, they have a lot of different beliefs over there. So, maybe you need to change your name from 'atheist' to something else to distance yourself from these 'hostile' and 'hatefully intolerant' proponents of atheism, because after all, it isn't a problem the religious or agnostic people of the world can solve for you.

Sure, I'll bite

[l0b0]

While working at a major research institute library, the head librarian asked a few of us whether we could burn a book. Any book, for example some Office 95 manual that nobody has checked out since way into the last millennium. There were a few muffled answers, which turned into more of a philosophical question: Would you willingly destroy knowledge (or art, as with the stories of religions), knowing that on one side it would make space for new books which we would otherwise have to pass up, and on the other side someone might turn up, wanting to use it for some purpose we didn't imagine at the time of destroying it?

The real story

[Anonymous Coward]

The real story here is in the reaction from the various religious groups.

Christians: Meh...
Muslims: Kill the infidel!!

Don't Be A Dick, Alex

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, Alex Stewart should really take into heart what Phil Plait said and perhaps refrain from being such an ass:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/08/17/dont-be-a-dick-part-1-the-video/

I mean, hey, yeah. Stewart had every right to do what he did.

But when people stereotype atheists as hyper-privileged assholes, they'll be using Stewart as an example.

Don't be stupid!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to conclude everything very short. There are no values in an atheist life because they live for nothing and die for nothing. This guy is so stupid that he doesn't know what he is doing. By burning the Quran the realities can't be changed. Never measure Quran and Islam according to what is shown to you blind people on the media. The facts in Quran challenges the very tiny knowledge of human being to go inside it and discover the undiscovered.

I've got a few books I'd like to burn...

[akayani]

I guess it is too soon to burn books on Flash. What about Java now it's owned by Orifice?

Promoted in the media - he will be beheaded soon

[m1c4a1]

In a few week he'll be in the news again. It'll be about discovery of his beheaded body. Yeah, unfortunatelly even in 21th century there are people who believe in tales and they think these tales are more valuable than human's life.

Paraphrasing George Carlin

[frenchbedroom]

What if the Bible had half the pages missing ? What if it was printed in Chinese, or in Braille ? What if it was a Chinese Braille Bible with half the pages missing ? At what point does the symbolic value of the book break down into stupid bullshit ?

Burning Koran = Burning Flag

[Anonymous Coward]

Burning a country's flag is not important. It's only a piece of cloth. But it's a piece of cloth which symbolizes beliefs and emotions which are very important to some people, and that's what makes so troublesome (even dangerous) to do so. In fact, in some countries burning their flag can get you in jail.

Burning a Koran (or a Bible, or...) is exactly the same. The book is not important. It's the things it symbolizes what are important. And people can be rightly upset about that, the same as if you are a patriot and somebody burns your flag, the same as if they burn your deceased mother photo. It means disrespect, contempt, even hate.

Saying burning a symbolic book like those is burning a mere book is hypocrisy or blindness at best. People attaches feelings to objects, and gets hurt when those symbols are destroyed.