…and this is a 
How can you simultaneously be such leaders of advancing secularism and pandering cowards to the demands of religion? The police have arrested 6 people who posted a video of a Koran-burning. They did not break into a mosque and steal somebody else's book, they had their own copy and destroyed it … they did nothing illegal. But they're still arrested, and the police are making excuses.
In a joint statement, Northumbria Police and Gateshead Council said: "The kind of behaviour displayed in this video is not representative of our community as a whole. Our community is one of mutual respect and we continue to work together with community leaders, residents and people of all faiths and beliefs to maintain good community relations."
Oh, bugger that. If you want to maintain good community relations, you do it be allowing every member freedom of conscience in all matters that do not cause harm to others. You do not accomplish an atmosphere of tolerance by telling one group that they have the privilege of imposing their religious requirements on everyone else.
That settles it. I have a copy of the Koran at home right now. I will not have a copy tomorrow, because I will not respect a religion of such intolerance enough to allow their propaganda a space on my bookshelf.
And if I had a relic representative of the pious ninnies on the Gateshead city council, I'd destroy that too.
Comments
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
September 23, 2010 12:43 PM
It's just a frackin'
crackerbook!Posted by: Sajanas
|
September 23, 2010 12:44 PM
I use mine to hold up my Venus Fly Trap. The hatred makes it grow stronger.
Posted by: reverend.pj
|
September 23, 2010 12:46 PM
And people say atheists are dicks? What a load of bollocks!
Posted by: cervantes
|
September 23, 2010 12:47 PM
I'm afraid I can't go along with that sentiment. I don't subscribe to any religion, all of which have plenty of historic examples of behavior which is much worse than getting PO'd when somebody disrespects their icons. But I have copies of all the important scriptures -- Bible, Koran, Upanishads, Vedas, Sutras, you name it -- because I am interested in understanding humanity, and these are important records.
Your fit of pique is unbecoming and takes you down a notch in my estimation.
Posted by: egoburnswell
|
September 23, 2010 12:50 PM
Went to youtube to see if there were any videos of Koran burning, there were plenty, but they're all flagged as 'offensive content'!
Posted by: MJP
|
September 23, 2010 12:50 PM
Dude. People were arrested.
Posted by: mcclelland.robert
|
September 23, 2010 12:50 PM
Calm down, PZ. Blaming Muslims and all of Islam for something the Northumbria Police did is absurd.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 23, 2010 12:53 PM
I'd keep the book but put it in some undignified location. Does Islam discourage storing the Koran in a bathroom?
The figurine of the politicians, though, I might actually put in the toilet.
Posted by: Tzi
|
September 23, 2010 12:54 PM
To be fair, it wasn't intolerant Muslims who arrested them (or really had anything to do with it as far as I can tell). It was an overreacting [secular] police department.Posted by: Pigdowndog
|
September 23, 2010 12:54 PM
I feel quite ashamed to be British.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
September 23, 2010 12:55 PM
That really isn't the point. I wasn't on-board for the cracker incident, don't like flag-burning, and I don't actually think that burning the Qur'an is helpful either.
So what? The point quickly moves from there to the perverse reactions against those acts, which are far from moderate, tolerant, or respectful of human rights.
I don't care at this point that I don't actually like book-burning, the overwhelming point is that we should be able to thumb our noses at any work of "authority," or any book at all.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Danno Davis
|
September 23, 2010 12:56 PM
Throwing away your Koran seems like a non-sequitur, though. And wait, the only reason you're not going to throw away your Bible along with your Koran is because you respect Islam less? And this dawned on you when some English cops arrested six Koran-burners?
Your reaction strikes me as kind of silly, sir.
Posted by: Trevindor
|
September 23, 2010 12:58 PM
It is very short-sighted, perhaps even offensive, to burn religious texts.
They are carbon sinks and really should be buried rather than converted to atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Posted by: sendittodevnull
|
September 23, 2010 12:59 PM
I bet you wouldn't say that about islam! ....oh wait ... ummm...
Posted by: te24hours
|
September 23, 2010 1:00 PM
I hope that you destroy the Koran and post the evidence the same as you did for the wafer. I'm proud of you for this, even though I often disagree agree with your tactics.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
September 23, 2010 1:00 PM
Color me unimpressed with PZ's outrage as well. Based solely on the facts we have available, we should be putting the blame on the police department. I was pretty pissed with the muslims who demanded his arrest til I clicked that link and found out we were assuming their existence.
Posted by: Grumpy1942
|
September 23, 2010 1:01 PM
Yours isn't a perfect copy of the Koran anyway.
Doesn't it have some pages missing?
Posted by: Anri
|
September 23, 2010 1:01 PM
Very well. Please explain to us, if you would, what gives us (or anyone else) the right to determine what you can and cannot do with those books in your possession.
A religous leader demanding that you not burn their particular book carries just as much moral weight as one insisting that you burn that of a rival sect. I imagine you would react with utter disdain to the latter request, why credit the former with any greater authority?
Posted by: spam.away.666
|
September 23, 2010 1:01 PM
The same argument was made for a cracker some time ago. PZ, why do you hate Islam more than Catholicism?
:eyes detatch from optic nerve and do a three-sixty:
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
September 23, 2010 1:02 PM
As does your comment. Burning your own books on private property is no crime. Nobody should have been arrested. That is PZ's point. Argue that, then your comment may not be seen as silly.Posted by: tsig0
|
September 23, 2010 1:04 PM
So it's now a crime to show disrespect to Islam in England.
Jumping Jihad.
Posted by: ambulocetacean
|
September 23, 2010 1:04 PM
Maybe PZ should burn one of those British police hats - the ones that look like a great big black tit with a metal nipple.
Posted by: slugsie
|
September 23, 2010 1:06 PM
I just read about this elsewhere and wondered if PZ had heard. His reaction was roughly the same as mine. However I was born not too far from Gateshead, so I got a little bit extra pissed off.
How can the Police claim that it's inciting racial hatred? Muslim/Islam is not a race. It's a religion. Very different thing. You have a choice with one, and no choice with the other.
I'm ashamed to be British and a Geordie right now. :(
Posted by: Kawa
|
September 23, 2010 1:06 PM
@ambulocetacean, #22: but he already has the Koran on his shelf. A "great big black tit with a metal nipple" as you call it is somewhat harder to come by. Especially in Morris, I reckon.
Posted by: GeneralX
|
September 23, 2010 1:06 PM
Northumbria Police have lost the plot!
Posted by: uuaschbaer
|
September 23, 2010 1:06 PM
Source: "They were arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred ..."
Now that's interesting. The police forces people of some undefined genetic heritage to take offense at something that is not directed at them. Or, actually, it takes offense for them, in their stead, without their consent. Isn't that convenient?
Perhaps that means that I can declare my products sold to people who I guess would've liked to buy them. Maybe I can even be a locksmith for those rich people in that villa along the street without their permission too. I mean, they're Japanese and therefore probably Buddhists or whatever and don't want their material possessions anyway, right?
Posted by: gussnarp
|
September 23, 2010 1:07 PM
Burning a religious book can make lots of different statements:
1. Violence and threats of violence against people who insult your religion is wrong!
2. Your(most) religion(s) is(are) foolish and incites violence.
3. People should not be arrested for speech (you know, caveats about fire in a crowded building, which burning a Koran is not, etc.)
4. I hate Muslims because they are different and scare me! (I do not, but it's a possible message).
I have no problem with messages 1 through 3, but a huge problem with message 4. How do you know when message 4 is intended? Usually when the person doing it belongs to an incredibly similar fundamentalist religion to the one whose book he (usually) is burning and issues press releases to make sure the world is watching his insignificant action.
But it doesn't matter what your message is when it comes to the law. No one should be arresting you for burning a religious book in a safe manner. Even if the hateful Florida preacher had burned his Koran (I don't know what the wishy washy waffler finally decided), while I disagreed with him his arrest would have been fundamentally wrong and a violation of the Constitution. What law were these folks arrested for violating? This is an injustice, plain and simple, and one that ought to have a legal remedy. In the states we sue the police for wrongful arrest and make them feel it in the pocketbook.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
September 23, 2010 1:11 PM
@Trevindor #13 - I concur.
Posted by: peter.waine
|
September 23, 2010 1:14 PM
Better still, use it as bog paper
Posted by: legistech
|
September 23, 2010 1:15 PM
Uhhh.... that type of intolerance isn't exactly unique to Islam, is it? I kind of agree with Danno that the reaction is a bit weird, unless you also plan to get rid of the Bible. After all, Catholics and Christians would be arresting Bible-burners if they could. It's not called "fatwa envy" for nothing.
Posted by: AlisonS
|
September 23, 2010 1:20 PM
Outrageous! Don't the police have real crimes to deal with? Offending delicate religious sensibilities does not equate with racism. As has been pointed out, one's preferred myth is a choice.
Posted by: Danno Davis
|
September 23, 2010 1:20 PM
@20: No, we're in agreement that burning books shouldn't be criminal and that no one should've been arrested. And that should go without saying.
Of course, PZ is free to do whatever he likes with his Koran. I'm just having a hard time connecting A to B. Islam didn't suddenly get stupider and less bookshelf-worthy after the actions of the English cops, in other words.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
September 23, 2010 1:20 PM
Might as well throw the Bible in too. It can't hurt and people would have to shut up with the supposed anti-Muslim bias. I'm sure you use it for research purposes, but when there's a searchable version on line there's not much point, really.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
September 23, 2010 1:22 PM
Because we Brits are a complicated bunch...
In practice, it is the old story. There are plenty of progressive Brits who view religion as decidely weird and outmoded. Unfortunately, our government does not consist entirely of such people. Baroness Warsi announced last week during the Pope's vists that the Conservative government intends to bring religion back to the center of UK public life.
You see, it is not just America that has crazy governments passing laws that leave enlightented citizens depillating themselves in rage...
Posted by: rutager
|
September 23, 2010 1:23 PM
Is there a law against burning the Koran in the UK?
Posted by: SteveM
|
September 23, 2010 1:24 PM
re 13:
Unless you bury it very very deep in solid anaerobic rock, organic decay of the paper will release the carbon back to the atmosphere anyway.
Posted by: Jarred C.
|
September 23, 2010 1:25 PM
#5, egoburnswell
Heh, you're right! And yet, burning the bible is not considered offensive by youtube. Nor is burning Twilight books (you know, the ones those new crappy vampire movies are based on).
Although, that last video was the greatest! Right when the father tried to burn his daughter's books on Twilight, the wind kicked up and he couldn't light it. He blamed it on satan protecting his books. Haha!
Posted by: darthcynic
|
September 23, 2010 1:26 PM
In fairness to Mr Cervantes, I think he comments more on the act of getting rid of the book merely because the bully boys of British "Justice" acted so outrageously. I don't think Mr PZ was suggesting that he was going to publicly burn his own copy of the Koran as a statement of freedom of speech, merely throw it out. Which does seem a bit pointless in all honesty.
Regards the vid, I believe it might be this one link. If this is indeed it, well the participants do rather resemble the blight of many a British or Irish housing estate, hoodied chav scum that certainly did not intend to make a statement on freedom of expression; or maybe I'm an elitist clown jumping to conclusions based on nothing more than dress and their shrilly, lumpen impersonating of some Arabian utterance. They seem to be igniting the book merely for ignorant fire based jollies and their brave boys in Afghanistan; boys they seem unwilling to join curiously enough. Of course that they might be little more than ignorant thugs burning a book is still insufficient grounds to arrest them. Certainly not for incitement to racial hatred as they are being charged with, Islam not being a race last time I checked.
Hardly surprising for the UK though, it seems they want to win the race for becoming a police state. Most cctv monitored - they even shout at you in some places - nation, arrests for wearing certain t-shirts, protest exclusion zone, t-shirts depicting guns banned from flights. Now this waste of time, resources and yet another step upon civil liberties.
Posted by: Tor Arne
|
September 23, 2010 1:26 PM
I "desecrated" a bible once. I wanted to fold tiny origami figures, but to do that I needed very thin paper. That copy of the new testament I was given in the Royal Norwegian Air Force finally came in handy.
I was able to fold tiny frogs, as small as 5 mm across. I might have been able to make them smaller had I used tweezers.
Posted by: Epinephrine
|
September 23, 2010 1:29 PM
I don't see how the Northumbrian police and Gateshead council's decision makes Islam a religion of intolerance.
Destroying the Koran in an act of solidarity makes some sense, but I agree with others that the reason supplied by PZ seems out of sync with the story. I suspect the council would be just as quick to step in if it had been a Torah or Bible.
We're meant to be skeptics - when the reason given for an act doesn't seem sensible, we're going to ask questions and point out the apparent logical leap. If Muslims acted to pressure the department, PZ's statement would perhaps make some sense. As it is, it seems like the police and council are terribly concerned about how their community's appearance. While this certainly could be a result of the respect granted religion in general, it does not seem specific to Islam.
A little more appropriate, but I think we should burn a relic representative of the pious ninnyishness of the council, not the ninnies themselves.
Posted by: squealpiggy
|
September 23, 2010 1:29 PM
Just a quick comment - police forces down't go around looking for incitement crimes to punish. I find it highly unlikely that PC Smith was scrolling through Youtube on his day off and said "By Jiminy old beanchap, them pikeys are burning a bloomin book of faith and all that malarkey! I'll ave me jolly well chums go and nick them ne'er do wells to teach them a bloomin lesson gawd bless er!"
Somebody made a complaint to police.
Posted by: James
|
September 23, 2010 1:34 PM
You might want to consider that because of that bastard Blair those men could just have easily have been charged under terrorism related offences.
Worrying really.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/2Cpr09BisvAGE8xTLScKqHa9oE8qMtok#e64de
|
September 23, 2010 1:35 PM
Does this take me down a notch in your estimation?
Fuck off.
Don't you understand that you don't get to arrest people for destroying their own property?
If I went and bought that waste of toilet paper, do you expect me to be under some obligation to take good care of it?
Fuck that. It's a FUCKING BOOK. (Actually the Kama Sutra is a fucking book, but that's neither here nor there)... No book, and no amount of words makes a dime-a-dozen book sacred.
If this guy was an archeologist and found the first copy of the Koran ever made, he would still be under rights to burn it BECAUSE IT IS HIS FUCKING PROPERTY. I'll admit that burning an ancient relic is kinda douche-ish, but that's still his right. There are no laws against how to dispose of a religious book, therefore we get to dispose of it however we want.
Period.
Posted by: CMT
|
September 23, 2010 1:37 PM
Put your copy of the Koran in your bathroom next to your crapper so that you or anyone else who uses it can have some reading material to help pass the time.
Posted by: Captain Black
|
September 23, 2010 1:38 PM
"They were arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred and released on bail pending further inquiries."
Why is burning a copy of the koran inciting racial hatred? The last time I checked islam was a religion not a race.
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
September 23, 2010 1:40 PM
squealpiggy: Somebody made a complaint to police.
And not just some random "somebody". I'm pretty sure if a random high-school student called up the gateshead police and started complaining about a youtube video, the response would be "Please enter some text in your browser url line and hit return. Your problem is now solved" -- if they didn't decide to go arrest the whiner for wasting their time.
Obviously someone with an interest and with some pull in the community called it in.
I'm amazed at the lack of deductive ability of some commenters. Yes -- abduction, induction and deduction are part of scientific skepticism. Given a universe of incomplete information, one must judge on the basis of probability. If you don't think you're doing so, you are just delusional.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
September 23, 2010 1:41 PM
@squealpiggy - Who cares if someone made a complaint? The correct response would be, "sir, you are wasting police time and tying up phone lines that could be used to report an actual crime with an actual victim."
Posted by: Danno Davis
|
September 23, 2010 1:41 PM
@44: Huh? Why would anyone want to ruin a perfectly good shit?
Posted by: Bwanandegi
|
September 23, 2010 1:41 PM
Over the years believers of mainly Christian or Islamic persuasion have tried to talk me into joining their clubs. A question I have asked of them, over and over again, is that why when you have this immeasurable faith in your gods and prophets and this unshakeable belief in the hereafter, that the damaging of a material, man-made object such as a building, a book, a grave, a picture, a sculpture or even a garment rocks this religious conviction to its very foundations? As I have yet to have a rational answer I remain an unbeliever bemused by the scenario of heads of states, senior politicians, policemen along with all the believers leaping around when somebody who was virtually unknown a week or two ago, decides to burn some printed paper. In Gateshead this evening if a bunch of thugs broke into your house and were assaulting your wife and kids, getting one policeman off his fat backside to intervene would be a miracle comparable to some in the religious tomes in question.
Posted by: abu.iksander
|
September 23, 2010 1:43 PM
I say go for it, just make sure that you destroy a Bible, a Book of Mormon, and a copy of The Origin of Species as well. Why let one group keep all of the self-righteous outrage to themselves?
Also you should destroy John Grisham books. Not so much as a political statement, but mainly because his books are just awful.
Posted by: Forbidden
|
September 23, 2010 1:45 PM
Don't burn it. I mean, think about it, you're just releasing concentrated stupid into the atmosphere. Go green and pulp it so that it can be recycled into a useful repository of factual information.
Posted by: Secular Transhumanist
|
September 23, 2010 1:46 PM
Aren't all British police technically operating under the authority of the Crown? Perhaps burning a photo of the Queen might be in order.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/2Cpr09BisvAGE8xTLScKqHa9oE8qMtok#e64de
|
September 23, 2010 1:46 PM
Of course they're to blame here, but the only reason they reacted the way they did is because of the stigma that Islam has for its
toilet papersacred text.If everyone starts treating the text with contempt you remove the taboo, and the police will laugh when someone complains about a single book being burned.
Really needs to remember to sign all of his posts because of the google soup,
-Kemanorel
Posted by: Dianne
|
September 23, 2010 1:51 PM
I'm hopelessly conflicted on this issue.
It's your copy of the Koran, do whatever you please with it in response to whatever you want.
OTOH, I'd suggest that destroying it is a waste of a perfectly good reference book (I'm sure the Islamic fundies are about as ignorant of their religion as the Christian fundies and having a reference around to quote back at them could be useful.) I'm also of the crowd that dislikes burning or otherwise destroying books on principle.
Then again, if you asked me, "Why is it your business what I do with my own books" I'd have to admit that it wasn't. There's no law in the US anway (and I'm not sure what they're going to find to charge the people they arrested with in Britain either).
But as a last piece of gratuitous advice: Forget burning. Dig a hole, toss it in, and put a tree on top of it so that the carbon from the decay will have some place to go.
Posted by: Prospect151
|
September 23, 2010 1:51 PM
Them's fightin words!!
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
September 23, 2010 1:53 PM
@googlemess:
No, I would be fine with saying that destroying historically important artifacts is a crime against humanity. Otherwise, why are so many people upset about the Taliban destroying the Buddha statues built into the mountains? I get a bit provoked to hear about Islamic leaders advocating blowing up the pyramids in Egypt. The fact that no one's destroyed the 15,000 year old cave paintings in Northern Somalia is pretty nice, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone proposed it.
Posted by: Cylux
|
September 23, 2010 1:56 PM
*Groan*
That story is bloody grist for the Daily Mail's mill.
I can't wait for the commentary along the lines of Politically Correct Storm-Troopers, Muslim's taking away all our rights, Police wasting time persecuting white english-not-british men down the pub rather than stopping blacks from stabbing your kids, and other right-wing middle england toss-rangerery.
Well done Northumbria Police for handing this story to the Mail on a fucking plate, and of course for being idiotic enough to think these arrests were worth doing in the first place, even if they do have connections to the EDL.
Posted by: Becca Stareyes
|
September 23, 2010 1:57 PM
I have a distaste for burning books, mostly because the folks who do it seem to want to suppress ideas. True or false, I want to see ideas brought into the open where they can be discussed and criticized. (And praised, and mocked, and whatever.)
But, I also recognize that burning a book* is a form of speech and should be protected by a reasonable government, regardless of the book's content. In other words, while I don't like book burning, it totally should be legal. Speech should be countered by speech, not arrest.
* Assuming it's your book and you obey all safety precautions for lighting fires. Theft and arson are crimes -- sticking your copy of the Koran in your barbecue in your front yard is not.
Posted by: SEF
|
September 23, 2010 1:58 PM
You could try whinging at Gateshead council for their poor judgment, abject cowardice and general lack of moral fibre. They'll probably ignore you though (even if they send a non-reply of some sort).
In all likelihood, whinging at the MPs would be similarly fruitless. They're Labour party ones - and Labour has form for sucking up to religionists a lot recently.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/2Cpr09BisvAGE8xTLScKqHa9oE8qMtok#e64de
|
September 23, 2010 1:58 PM
There's no need. It's about the taboo around Islam and making it common place to be allowed to ridicule it.
Do you think anyone will ever be arrested for burning a copy of Origin of Species? Then there's no need for it.
Posted by: Free Lunch
|
September 23, 2010 2:02 PM
Apparently Islam doesn't think that any Korans in translation are really Korans. Only the ones in ancient Arabic have the god-magic. So, the first question is whether this was a real Koran or an English-language Koran. Lucky for American evangelicals and fundies, God dictated the Bible in King James' English.
Still, for a country with such a minimal amount of religion, it is hard to believe that there are cops anywhere in the UK who care how people use anyone's supposed scriptures.
Posted by: CMT
|
September 23, 2010 2:03 PM
@#48
Think about it. You have a chance of someone picking it up, reading a few passages, and realizing the stupidity of Islam and all other religions.
Plus, you'll also have some wiping material when you're done.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
September 23, 2010 2:04 PM
The last phase of the Muslim takeover will be the conversion of a faction of the ruling class. For the sake of "peace" or something like that.
The Muslim UK will not be a UK run by folks whose parents came from Pakistan et al. It will be Anglo-Normans with just a few of the others thrown in.
Because it's always been about supressing uppish natives, whether in 1066 or today. Whether in Karachi or Gateshead.
And Islam is better for that than squishy liberalism.
Posted by: mpajeau
|
September 23, 2010 2:05 PM
@Kawa, #24: A "great big black tit with a metal nipple" as you call it is somewhat harder to come by. Especially in Morris, I reckon.
No doubt - where is Janet Jackson when you need her?
Posted by: murtagh
|
September 23, 2010 2:07 PM
Well, I'm going to download another Koran and viciously delete it!
To be fair, I will do the same for a Bible, Tao te Ching, Torah, Vedas, Mahabharata, Popol Vuh, whatever Dianetic bits I can scrape from Operation Clambake, some lasagna recipes for the Pastafarians and an empty text file for us atheists.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/O.jullMj0I2VvJaxMMVeNKSfOPf73voLSxJAe9PdlOWwi8Y-#258ec
|
September 23, 2010 2:07 PM
well I do not know very much about the politics of The UK but I have heard about one of the smaller parties that sounded like they had a lot our own ultra-nationalists and seem very racist to me though they deny it. Could they have been involved in this burning? If so it would be inciting racism and asking for some kind of reaction which they did get.
as far as PZ burning his "Book" it does seem a little silly to me but so what he can do what ever he wants and should not be punished for it even if it is something I would not do.
I have a lot of things on my bookshelves but I can even through any of them away when they start to fall apart. Some of them I will never ever read like an old bible that belonged to some departed relative.
If you do burn and film it, why not do it in costume say in a clown suit white face, red nose, big shoes and all. That would convey the proper respect and solemnity such activities would warrant
uncle frogy
Posted by: strangeseraph
|
September 23, 2010 2:11 PM
Might use the pages from mine to line the catbox. That's a good use for scrap paper.
Posted by: chigau (◦_◦)
|
September 23, 2010 2:14 PM
I just looked at my copy of The Koran.
It's a cheap paperback "Based on the Original English Translation by J. M. Rodwell"
Sura 53 is missing*. This is the sura that contains the "Satanic Verses". Are imperfect Korans burnable?
*not torn out, simply not printed and with no indication of missing text. Sura 52 then next Sura 54.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 23, 2010 2:21 PM
When the Florida idiot was the topic of a post, I was in there defending the idea that he shouldn't be burning the Korans because of the message it sent; a public bonfire of one particular set of ideas is almost always a message that threatens the people who hold them, particularly (and maybe only) if they are already an oppressed minority. But I would never, ever, ever advocate making such actions actually illegal. I'd be right at a bonfire of Korans specifically to protest the arrest of someone else who had done the same thing, no matter what the message they had been trying to send was.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
September 23, 2010 2:23 PM
Or basically, what gussnarp already said.
Posted by: Tulse
|
September 23, 2010 2:24 PM
Coming on the heels of the protests and deaths in the Islamic world around the Florida pastor's threat, it sure does.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
September 23, 2010 2:24 PM
In the U.S. it's perfectly legal to incite racism. Racism is evil, but it's not actually illegal to hate someone. It only becomes illegal when there is another actual crime attached. I don't like the KKK, I don't agree with anything they say, but they have the right to say it. The nice thing about this view is that it allows the assholes to self identify. In spite of, or perhaps because of, their right to tell people what dicks they are, groups that outright express racism are on the absolute fringe. Their right to speak isn't making them any more popular. I know Europe tends to have a different view of this, but I think they're wrong. Imagine if you will how the legal authorities distinguish between whether these people were inciting racism and whether PZ is with this post? Better to avoid that issue and let the idiots speak and reveal themselves.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/tzY1j94zxoBJpgH0exqFL35MDDcGqnCTSw--#ea0e7
|
September 23, 2010 2:25 PM
I love it! I am a 31 year old budtender at a MMJ dispensary next to the VA office here in San Jose. Everything you say is how I feel on just all of your comments. Keep them coming because it really has a crap ton of validity.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
September 23, 2010 2:26 PM
This usually happens, but it isn't always the people you think it is.Your truth claim, and I'm sure as an atheist, you can work out who the burden of proof is on. Without that proof, you have only two groups of people to blame,a nd they're almost certainly comprised entirely of non-muslims.
Posted by: Cat's Staff
|
September 23, 2010 2:32 PM
How about burning the minutes of the Northumbria Police Authority meeting...
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/2Cpr09BisvAGE8xTLScKqHa9oE8qMtok#e64de
|
September 23, 2010 2:34 PM
BECUASE THEY DON'T OWN THEM!
-Kemanorel
Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
|
September 23, 2010 2:39 PM
Gus--
Yes, it allows the assholes to self-identify, but they do so by spreading racism. And that racism then means more racists hassling people in ways large as well as small: for every politician caught having advocated segregation, there are thousands of incidents of random people insulting or threatening their neighbors for having the audacity to exist and be different.
(I'm not sure of a better answer. I'm just angry. And worn out. As I suspect you are.)
Posted by: vanharris
|
September 23, 2010 2:40 PM
I checked with the Chronicle News, the local paper, to see if the Koran burners also were filmed being racist. This would be quite likely if they belong to a right wing extremist group. The police would've been acting properly in that case.
However, the paper reports, Police confirmed the arrests were in relation to burning the book, not for making, distributing or watching the video.
Read More http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/evening-chronicle-news/2010/09/23/six-men-arrested-after-koran-burnt-on-9-11-72703-27327993/2/#ixzz10NWNy0MN
This action by the police is highly questionable,assuming that the paper has reported on the Koran burning accurately. In my experience, accuracy isn't often achieved.
However, I feel like walking into the local police station & ripping up a bible, to see what happens. Maybe someone in the UK would like to burn a bible on video & have someone inform the police?
Posted by: Danno Davis
|
September 23, 2010 2:42 PM
Nice, Kemanorel.
Posted by: latsot
|
September 23, 2010 2:47 PM
The arrests were presumably made because of the perceived threat of repercussions (or perhaps an explicit threat in a complaint to the police).
There are two problems here:
The first is that the threat of backlash by muslims against trivial acts is real as we've often seen. I suspect this is what PZ is referring to. Islam is a religion of particular hatred and intolerence and a mysterious 'community leader' always seems to turn up to express the outrage of all muslims at virtually any random act and add fuel to the fire. The arrests surely wouldn't have taken place without that background of hatred, intolerance and ignorance. It is absolutely justified to blame Islam in general and the way it is practiced by influential muslims in particular for fostering the environment that led up to these foolish arrests. It's fair to blame the ordinary muslim on the street who doesn't object to these arrests.
Second, we capitulate. This is partly because sometimes there are real threats as described above, but the threats (for the most part) are only allowed to become real BECAUSE we insist on giving religion undue respect. Understand that I'm not talking about huge acts of horrendous terrorism here: rather the sort of violence that might realistically arise from something as trivial as this act.
I think PZ's frustration is entirely appropriate. I feel it too. I feel it all the more because I lived in Gateshead for years. It has problems a lot bigger than this trivia.
Then again, I don't have many memories of Northumbria police acting sensibly.
Posted by: Yubal
|
September 23, 2010 2:47 PM
Does anybody here have the link to the video?
Posted by: Duncan
|
September 23, 2010 2:50 PM
Northumbria police are not a muslim organization, or in any way representative of Muslims. Burning a Koran would be a response I'd support if some muslims had attacked the six people who burned a Koran in a video.
With all due respect, Northumbria police are not going to be bothered by an American biologist with a popular blog. I'd suggest contacting Northumbria police here, as I am about to do.
Posted by: ThirdMonkey
|
September 23, 2010 2:53 PM
This argument about not offending people’s religious sensitivities seems to be coming up quite a bit lately so I’ve decided to pontificate on the topic.
I was recently asked how is drawing mohammed not the same as calling a black person “nigger”?
Of course this is a nonsense comparison but I had to think for a second to figure out why and the answer was deceptively simple.
No one has a choice in the circumstances of their birth. To disparage someone on the basis of race, sexual orientation, parents or other aspects of the random chance around their birth is unfair, inappropriate and is not a defendable action.
However, everyone has a choice in their religious beliefs. You choose to believe what you believe. You might not have much choice in what faith your parents indoctrinate you with and in some cases choosing not to believe may have serious consequences but you still have a choice. No one is born believing in any particular religion. I think that most people forget that religion is a choice and confuse it with something they are born with, like race.
So when someone is offended at someone else for not respecting that choice they are choosing to be offended. Why would they choose to be offended? I can think of two reasons: to show how pious they are to fellow believers and as a weapon of intimidation. Whenever I see muslims rioting, screaming with anger, tearing at their clothes and hair in rage, all I see are people who are trying to show their fellow muslims and their leaders how pious they are (a desire likely rooted in apostacism being a capital offence). Then their leaders see this and choose to use it as a terror weapon. They encourage this behavior, foster it and grow it until the rioters actually believe that any insult should be responded to with rage. The leaders take this and show it to their enemies as a threat. “Look at our followers devotion! Look at their rage! Do what we say or we won’t be responsible for their actions!”
They gain power over others by intimidating them into “respecting” their beliefs and the first step in doing so is by displaying disproportional responses of outrage to the slightest, most insignificant displays of disrespect.
How do we fight this? Show them that we will not be intimidated. Drawing mohammed or (less tastefully) burning Korans demonstrates that we don’t care how “offended” you are and we will not be intimidated. We have to take away the sanctity of their symbols so they can’t be used as tools of control. One way to do that is to desensitize them by bombarding them with shows of disrespect for their iconography. Eventually either their heads will explode or they will realize that it is meaningless and stop getting so upset.
Taking offence is the choice of the offended, not the offender. That’s why it is called “taking offence”. No one has the right not be offended and shows of offense should only be interpreted as an attempt at intimidation. Never submit to the demands of others in the name of not offending them.
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
September 23, 2010 2:58 PM
You can be arrested for that? Jesus Hussein Christ, that's becked up. Then stop arresting people for exercising free speech and start respecting their rights.Posted by: djmallett
|
September 23, 2010 3:03 PM
PZ,
Please burn your Koran and post a video of it. Don't be afraid of these terrorists.
Posted by: hyperdeath
|
September 23, 2010 3:05 PM
You militant fundamentalist atheists are all the same. You can't tolerate dissent from your rigid dogma, and so you join the cult of Pharyngula, where you worship your God Meyers, preen each others egos, and obediently stamp down on any dissent. You think the same things; you say the same things; you do the same things. Any cult leader would be proud.
(looks at posts of people disagreeing)
It's a schism!
Pharyngula is ripping itself apart! Atheism's shrill, strident, intolerant adherents are turning on one another, in an frenzied orgy of blind rage and venomous hatred. The religion of new atheism has split into two irreconcilable, mutually-excommunicating sects. Just like many other cults, in fact.
© Chris Mooney 2010
Posted by: ThirdMonkey
|
September 23, 2010 3:05 PM
The reaction of the Northumbria Police and Gateshead Council is clearly one based on fear. They are so afraid of retribution from Islamic terrorists that they would make an example of these six people. The arrest was done for no other reason than to appease the imagined threat and to make an example so others will not risk the safety of the community by doing anything that might provoke terrorists. The Gateshead Council are cowards and should be ashamed.
Posted by: latsot
|
September 23, 2010 3:14 PM
I can't quite understand what Gateshead Council has to do with it anyway. Isn't it simply a police matter? Why have the council stepped in to comment? It doesn't make decisions on who is arrested or charged.
I can only assume it's because of fear, either of actual violence or of people thinking it endorses religious 'intolerance'.
Posted by: Alan B
|
September 23, 2010 3:32 PM
As usual: too late. Most of what I wanted to say has been said. Just 2 points:
Islam is not a race.
The (large) majority of Moslems are not Arabs.
Top 5 countries by Moslem population:
Indonesia
Pakistan
India
Bangladesh
Nigeria
% of the world Muslem population by continent*:
Asia / Pacific 62%
Middle East / North Africa** 20%
Sub-Saharan Africa 15%
Europe 2%
North and South America 0.3%
* All except Americas rounded to nearest integer.
** Some of the Middle East / North Afica countries would not call their population "Arabic". For example: Turkey and Iran (coming at 7th and 8th). Many Arabs would agree. (Egypt is in 6th place.)
Posted by: Dark Matter
|
September 23, 2010 3:33 PM
This is a distraction, Prof. Myers.
Meanwhile......
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/23/national/main6893460.shtml
Sept. 23, 2010
Texas Board of Ed: Textbooks Are Anti-Christian
Conservative Activist School Board Declares History Books Pro-Islam, "Very, Very, Very, Very Biased"; Vote Friday
(CBS/AP) Texas' State Board of Education - following a long history of throwing itself into "culture war" issues - is set to vote Friday on a resolution calling on textbook publishers to limit what they print about Islam in world history books.
The resolution cites world history books no longer used in Texas schools that it says devoted more lines of text to Islamic beliefs and practices than Christian beliefs and practices.
"Diverse reviewers have repeatedly documented gross pro-Islamic, anti-Christian distortions in social studies texts," reads a draft of the resolution, which would not be binding on future boards that will choose the state's next generation of social studies texts.
-------------------------------------------
There are many ways to destroy books.
Some more effective than others...
Posted by: Juicyheart
|
September 23, 2010 3:37 PM
Hey, while your burning the Koran, why don't you also burn a six foot cross on your front lawn?
Posted by: jschmeau
|
September 23, 2010 3:41 PM
The slope the gateshead police have started down is so very slippery. This is a terrible precedent to have set. I wish they could have given half as much thought to the repercussions of their own actions as they did to the original incident.
Posted by: vanharris
|
September 23, 2010 3:42 PM
Juicyheart, did you mean, "Hey, while you're burning the Koran..."
Posted by: Duncan
|
September 23, 2010 3:43 PM
I sent the following email to Northumbria police. It's not very good, so I hope someone can write a better one.
Posted by: vanharris
|
September 23, 2010 3:44 PM
Jumpin' Jeezus on a stick, i forgot the ?.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/2Cpr09BisvAGE8xTLScKqHa9oE8qMtok#e64de
|
September 23, 2010 3:50 PM
Because that's racist in nature because of what used to happen in the past. (Though it's still just a legal so long as you follow all fire safety laws, if someone wants to, they're free to.)
It's a different connotation and you're a fool not to recognize that.
-Kemanorel
Posted by: Juicyheart
|
September 23, 2010 3:52 PM
@ #83. I don't think this hate crime was directed at Muslims or Islam, but rather immigrants of mid-eastern descent. Their taking a stereotype symbol and burning it to intimidate a minority, and work themselves up for more aggressive action. This action won't be directed at muslim who looks like a WASP, but anyone they feel looks Arab.
Posted by: stevieinthecity#9dac9
|
September 23, 2010 3:53 PM
And they didn't burn crosses in their own lawns. They burnt them in the yards of their intended victims.
Burning a Koran is not an act of hate or a threat of violence.
Posted by: CJO
|
September 23, 2010 3:54 PM
Hey, while your burning the Koran, why don't you also burn a six foot cross on your front lawn?
Mayhap he would, if people were getting arrested for burning their own crosses, on their own lawns. Of course, since you're a semi-literate moron, you're probably unaware that what you're feebly attempting to allude to is the practice of the Ku Klux Klan burning crosses on other people's lawns, specifically those of black people, which is a terrorist act and not the same thing at all. But thanks for dropping by and playing, expertly, the fool's game of false equivalence.
Posted by: Juicyheart
|
September 23, 2010 4:03 PM
@93 yep
@96 their using the Koran burning the same way the KKK used cross burning: as intimidate a minority and rally against that minority.
@99 the KKK did both. They burned crosses on their victim's property, on public property and on their own property in and out of view of the public. To both intimidate and rally around. This koran burning is nothing different.
Posted by: Steve
|
September 23, 2010 4:04 PM
Firstly, I'm often glad my ancestors left and/or were kicked out of that crappy little archipelago off the northwestern coast of Europe.
Secondly, I'm ambivalent about the burning. On the one hand, I like the idea of offending Muslims (and Christians, and...), but on the other hand, what's the point? I have a copy of the Quran on my bookshelf, next to an Old and New Testament, a JPS Tanakh, the Apocrypha, and other religious books. I also have a Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, a Bhagavad Gita, and a Tao Te Ching. They're just books. Why give power to those who think the Quran (or the Bible, etc) is "divine" by going out of one's way to destroy them? Understanding, deconstructing, and debunking them seem like more constructive approaches.
Posted by: TimmyC
|
September 23, 2010 4:06 PM
"British police made a silly arrest, therefore I am pissed of at . . . . Muslims!"
Holy non sequitur, PZ!
Posted by: Pogsurf
|
September 23, 2010 4:07 PM
In Watford, if we have a beef with someone else, we just give them a fucking good kicking. Seems to work out most times.
Posted by: Ewan R
|
September 23, 2010 4:08 PM
I balked a little at the following
Because
a) It's silly - no behaviour is representative of any community as a whole.
b) In Gateshead, at least large swathes of Gateshead, behaviour like this (and worse) categorically is representative of a lot of the population.
I grew up in Gateshead, it is a pus filled buebo festering beneath Newcastle (which says quite a bit) - it has been somewhat improved of late with some rather good moves by the local council (Millenium funded rebuild of the riverside area including an art museum, a nifty bridge and all manner of pretties) but by and large it remains a festering sore. It just has a little concealer on it now.
Growing up my peers (aged probably 8-12) activities included such awesome activities as "Jew bashing" (Gateshead has a huge Jewish Hasidic Jewish community - real hard core types who pretty much keep themselves to themselves but inspire a great deal of hatred by virtue of being different) which no doubt was a good way to fill in the time between sniffing glue, stealing cars, and hurling racial abuse at Paki's (anyone not brown enough to warrant the N word and not yellow enough to have some Chinese oriented insults hurled their way) - as I recall the BNP were pretty active in the area and probably the only reason they haven't toppled labour as the leading political force in the area is that their potential voters are too bone idle and stupid to make it to the polls.
Not that I dislike the area. Lots of great people live there - and are spat upon by the "true natives" - Kosovans (why can't they just go home! seeing your village systematically shelled raped and murdered can't be so bad that you have to steal my job), Jews, Muslims, Pakistanis - all are worth tossing a brick at for not being one of us.
/rant off
Posted by: gussnarp
|
September 23, 2010 4:12 PM
You've all seen my comments above regarding speech, racism, this particular incident, the other incident, so I'm not going to preamble this comment with any further clarification, I think it's unnecessary:
So most Muslims are not Arabic. That doesn't change whether the burning of a Koran is an act of hate, or even of racism. Check out Wikipedia's page on Race. I'll wait.
.
..
...
OK, you should have found all sorts of information there, including a definition of race that includes culture as well as biology. You also may have seen that race is not used in biological taxonomy - we're all homo sapiens, and that's it. Racism has been around for a long time, back to a time when all sorts of ridiculous pseudo-scientific reasons were used to justify it. It was easy to identify someone of African origin by their skin color and label them as deficient. But racism was practiced against a lot of other groups too, groups that it was harder to distinguish. Within Africa there was the Rwandan genocide. Tell me how you tell a Hutu from a Tutsi? Then there was racism against East Asians. Many Americans feared and hated anyone who was "yellow". But ethnically there are huge differences among Japanese, Chinese, Thai, Vietnamese, Korean, and even within any of these national groups. At this point we ought to be able to acknowledge that group need not have any distinct biological ties to be victims of racism. Prejudice against Muslims, not against the practice and teachings of Islam, but against Muslims and often targeted simply at their appearance (and therefore missing its target and hitting Sikhs and Hindus and others as well) is as well called racism as anything else. Look what happens when we call it Islamophobia. We get Hitchen's telling us it's not real. Or maybe we should just call it hate or prejudice. But it doesn't matter. We all know what we're getting at, and some narrow ethnic definition is meaningless compared to the essence of the thing.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm0qHctncgauPJ6_COgG9J2u8DnKBG3gpc
|
September 23, 2010 4:27 PM
Not it my back yard!
Chris,
Newcastle
Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
|
September 23, 2010 4:31 PM
ThirdMonkey @83:
It's not just that Islam is a choice and race/skin color aren't. It's that drawing a picture of Mohammed isn't either a specific insult, nor an insult toward Muslims in general.
Drawing Mohammed is a way of saying "I am not a Muslim, and I don't live by your laws; I will illustrate anything I feel like." It doesn't say "Muslims aren't welcome here" the way (for example) the attempts to stop some people from building a community center downtown does.
Elsenet, I'm tangentially involved in an argument started when someone claimed that Muslims are not qualified for U.S. citizenship (while ignoring the number of Dominionist Christians who, by her argument, should be equally unqualified). That's a prejudiced statement, and one that it's reasonable for people to find threatening--"convert or leave" is no better when addressed to a Muslim than to a Jew, atheist, Hindu, animist, or Christian. But I can and do object to that person's position while reiterating that I think Muslims are fundamentally mistaken: there is no god.
Posted by: hyperdeath
|
September 23, 2010 4:32 PM
Juicyheart:
You say "intimidate" and "rally around" as if they were equivalent concepts. Intimidation (when involving threats of arson and violence) is a clear criminal offence, and for good reason. On the other hand, rallying is a form of free expression, and is rightly regarded as a democratic right. (Or at least it used to be, before state-sponsored mollycoddling became politically expedient.)
If a group of social degenerates decide to dress up in cheap-looking Halloween costumes, and burn a crucifix, then that is their right. That right ends, however, if they do it in such a way as to threaten arson.
Koran burning is not a threatening act. It is in no way equivalent to burning a cross on someone's lawn. To equate the two is essentially a form of tone trolling, where the presence of any underlying threat is ignored, and the argument replaced with whinging and whining and wailing about how mean the whole thing is.
Posted by: Jockaira
|
September 23, 2010 4:34 PM
Kiyaroru @68
I just looked at my copy of The Koran.
It's a cheap paperback "Based on the Original English Translation by J. M. Rodwell"
Sura 53 is missing*. This is the sura that contains the "Satanic Verses". Are imperfect Korans burnable?
*not torn out, simply not printed and with no indication of missing text. Sura 52 then next Sura 54.
_____________________
The Gutenberg Project edition of Rodwell's Koran does have the missing Sura 54. It's a free download and you can delete it afterwards, symbolically burning it. If burning is your intent, please remember that doctrinaire Islam considers only authorized versions written in ancient Arabic (Mohammad's language) to be holy. All other versions, even the most sincerely devout translations, are not considered sacred or accurate, therefore not real Korans.
Posted by: boon
|
September 23, 2010 4:40 PM
There seem to be a number of ill informed people posting comments; from the Guardian website (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/23/six-arrested-alleged-burning-qurans)...
"The six men were arrested on suspicion of stirring racial hatred, police said, which is outlawed under the 1986 public order act. They were not arrested for the actual attack on, and burning of, the Qur'an, but in connection with the posting of the video.
Section 21 of the 1986 act reads: "A person who distributes, or shows or plays, a recording of visual images or sounds which are threatening, abusive or insulting is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or … racial hatred is likely to be stirred up."
Fair enough, we probably have most restrictive free speech laws in the UK (as do many other EU countries) compared to the US. Very much to do with tradition and the absolute importance attached to free speech in the US, which is defos to be admited. But I can certainly also see the need for a law against inciting racial hatred.
Posted by: Aegis Linnear
|
September 23, 2010 4:47 PM
This is twenty minutes from where I live.
I feel like punching someone.
Posted by: a.human.ape
|
September 23, 2010 4:48 PM
Least likely news story:
Men arrested in Gateshead over suspected burning of The God Delusion.
An important difference between atheists and Muslims: Instead of rioting, burning down buildings, and killing other people for the fun of it, atheists would just say "who cares?"
The real reason these men were arrested is the usual reaction of many Muslims to a cartoon of their idiot prophet or a harmless burning of a worthless book.
This arrest is sucking up to terrorism. Fortunately, in the country I live in, Idiot America, these people would never have been arrested. We have something called freedom of speech. I'm surprised a more advanced country like the UK doesn't respect this basic human right.
-- Human Ape
Posted by: Juicyheart
|
September 23, 2010 4:49 PM
@98-9 & 108. If burning a cross on ones own property is protected speech, and don't care who we offend, then why doesn't PZ burn a cross in his front yard? It'll be far less public than anything he posts here? Why are you all resorting to name calling if the action is only problematic when you do it on someone else's property?
Posted by: CMT
|
September 23, 2010 4:52 PM
@#110
Fair enough. Safety is an issue to be concerned with. And it is a matter of tradition. You have to have a hell of a threat before we (U.S.) allow our government to curtail our freedom. Hell, I seem to remember watching a documentary about a U.S. city (Cleveland?) where an African American mayor actually ordered the cops to protect a group of Klan members rallying in the middle of the city from people who might attack them.
Posted by: hyperdeath
|
September 23, 2010 4:54 PM
You mean other than the fact that he isn't a white supremacist?
Posted by: CMT
|
September 23, 2010 4:56 PM
@#114
Of course, I'm differentiating between the power we allow our government to have and the power our government assumes without a fucking concern for what we have to say (PATRIOT Act).
Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
|
September 23, 2010 5:00 PM
Juicyheart:
Because communication has content. It is legal for an asshole to call someone a n---- bitch. That doesn't mean I'm going to encourage or imitate them, or let them spend time in my home.
Posted by: Steven Mading
|
September 23, 2010 5:16 PM
The two different reasons people might have a book burning are thus:
#1 - For the purpose of desecration: "I want to stage a protest expressing my disdain for this book that so many hold sacred. To break the taboo that sacredness gives, I want to protest in as inflammatory (figuratively as well as literally) a way as I possibly can, and I refuse to let you stop me."
#2 - For the purpose of censorship: "Every copy of this book that is burned means one less copy that exists out there to be read by others. I am trying to make the book more scarce."
The irony is that these are precisely opposite reasons - diametrically opposed. #1 is pro free-speech, and #2 is anti free-speech.
The printing press made #2 less effective, and modern computerized publishing makes it even less effective. These days, if you wanted to do something akin to what the burning of the library of Alexandria did, you would need a computer expert, not an arsonist.
Why did I take the time to make this distinction between book burning for purpose #1 versus for purpose #2? Mostly because I think it's #2 that makes most people feel "icky" about it. It's the memory of the days when the people doing the burning were trying to censor ideas, not merely to protest them. These days if someone is trying to censor by means of a book burning, especially when they went out and bought the books explicitly to burn them, let the idiots do that -they're only hurting themselves. (*)
(* The exception, of course, is when the book in question is not a mass-produced copy but rather is an old copy with interesting provenance so it should be preserved for museum purposes.)
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
September 23, 2010 5:18 PM
Steve @ 101;
Hey, take it easy there. Some of the Pharyngulite Horde (yours truly included) are British citizens, and all in all it is not entirely awful. There are far worse places to live. Vast swathes of some Southern US states spring to mind. Then there is always Iran...
Juicyheart @ 100;
Surely you aknowledge that there is a vast difference between burning a symbol, any symbol, in private, even if it is in pursuit of an ideology we would consider repugnant, and performing the same action on someone else's property as a means of intimidation?
A person might feel justified in burning a swastika. The image is associated in our minds with terrible evil, and going after nazi ideology is not contentious (even though the image itself is actually far older than nazism, and has an altogether different meaning in some parts of the world). That person may even do so in the presence of friends or other people, perhaps members of the Anti-Fascist League, as a gesture of solidarity and contempt for the most famous symbol of fascism. However, if that individual were to burn a swastika on the lawn of someone else, say a person of German descent, then the action has a very different context.
Intimidating others and rallying your own supporters is hardly the same thing.
You use the highly emotive image of cross-burning, that is so contentious because it is closely associated with a repugnant, violent group that also lynched innocent people because of the colour of their skin. Given the specific history of such violence in the US, public cross-burning would be offensive and grossly insensitive, but it would not be illegal, and it should not be so.
What if the cross burning had nothing to do with race, and instead was a protest against militant religion? The choice of image would be poor, but you cannot impose intent on the action from the image alone, the range of possible meaning is greater than that. This is still protected speech
I would also be very leery of saying that a person cannot dispose of their own belongings as they fit on their own property, just because it would offend some group or other. If you start down that road, then we would have to outlaw all manner of things. Perhaps starting with eating beef, even in the privacy of your own home, because it might offend hindus.
PZ would also be in all kinds of trouble over the infamous 'Crackergate' incident...
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
September 23, 2010 5:19 PM
The message of secularists burning korans and drawing Mohamed is that of protest of Islamic demagogues attempting to force universal Islamic law under threat of terrorism/violence. By issuing fatwas and insisting others respect their religious laws they are doing the same thing as the Taliban enforcing their laws under threat of violence. The fact that they are doing it remotely in countries not under their control is irrelevant. They are creating a atmosphere of intimidation that is pressuring people to obey their religious laws. These protests are necessary to illustrate to MODERATES that this is intimidation and terrorism. Giving into these demands is not only unjust to non-Muslims, but insulting to Muslims as it implies that any Muslim in a western community is as much a violent thug who will take offense as the Islamofascists.
We have to make it more clear and do outreach that while its disrespectful to Islam the religion, it is in favor of Muslims as a people.
Posted by: ThirdMonkey
|
September 23, 2010 5:25 PM
Hi Vicki,
I'm sorry but I think you missed my points. Perhaps I rambled a bit.
My first point is that equating religious beliefs to race is a non sequitur.
The second is that taking offense is the choice of the offended. As such anger is not an appropriate response and it should be assumed that anyone demonstrating anger at being offended (especially over religious disrespect) is simply attempting to coerce through intimidation.
Posted by: ThirdMonkey
|
September 23, 2010 5:30 PM
Ing @120
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
September 23, 2010 5:31 PM
@121
You miss a more important one
Race only has implications in the gene frequency and likely hood of you to display certain traits.
Religion has philosophical statements and dogmas that have implications based on actions
One is a non-sequitor to hold someone accountable for (Protest Sickle-cell traiters?). The other is open to valid criticism since it is a collection of ideas.
A catholic can potentially work to change the Dogma or address concerns about the inanity of the soul or hell or etc. blaming someone for their race is as inane as screaming at someone for having MS or Albinoism or redhair and expecting them to fix it.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/2Cpr09BisvAGE8xTLScKqHa9oE8qMtok#e64de
|
September 23, 2010 5:32 PM
You, sir, are a retard. He doesn't because he's not a racist. What don't you get through all those comments that burning the Koran is not the same as burning a cross like the KKK does?
If you want, I'll get a crucifix thing with the guy nailed to it and burn it in a trashcan or a grill or a bonfire and cook hotdogs or hamburgers over it (mmmmm... sacralicious). I'll even use some Bibles as kindling.
That would be equivalent.
-Kemanorel
Posted by: ThirdMonkey
|
September 23, 2010 5:32 PM
What I meant was...
Ing @120 - wins the thread.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
September 23, 2010 5:33 PM
@121
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssssssssssssss?
Posted by: Glorfindel
|
September 23, 2010 5:38 PM
Not bad, but a bit dated. My aged laptop can reprint and destroy just over a million Qurans per day in background process qBurner, while having little or no impact on other computing tasks. These aren't dubious English translations, but the "real deal" in Arabic, the very words of Big Al via Mo. qBurner can easily be front-ended by a distributed computing system, which, like seti@home and many successors, can be installed in thousands of computers around the world, each reporting its burn count periodically. The server can accumulate the world-wide total each hour and post it on the web, superimposed over a graphic of a flaming Quran. The system scales efficiently, so that with only 1500 clients it should be possible to achieve a burn rate of about 1.5 gigaQurans per day, about one per day for each Muslim in the world. One probably wants to choose the server location with some care, and provide for mobility in the event of cyber, legal or even physical attack.
No dead trees, negligible carbon emission, no open-burning permits, and the ability for people to participate from anyplace in the world having internet access and a few spare computer cycles. I'd like to believe that even a few imams, cynical about the whole outrage-over-Quran-burning conceit (whatever public face they may have to maintain), would pull the drapes and playfully toss a few in the flames from Iran or Saudi Arabia.
What results can we expect from this immense virtual conflagration? In a rational world, the same result that we get from further dilution of your favorite homeopathic remedy -- nothing at all. Big Al, should he exist against all odds, certainly won't care. Mo, should he be looking down from paradise, will be (ahem) otherwise occupied. No Muslim with triple-digit intelligence will worry for even a single second about what is, by any rational measure, an exercise in transcendent futility, an electric monk of unbelief. For those who find comfort, inspiration and peace in some words of the Quran, the writings will still be there as before. For those who find justification for abomination in other bits of the Quran, it will still be there for them too.
But of course we may rely on the fact that certain madmen (yes, they're almost always men) whose religion-pickled neurons are no longer capable of more than a few primitive reflexes, certain intelligentsia (I'm looking at you Muqtedar Khan) who are their mouthpieces, and certain policemen who were absent or distracted the day they talked about freedom of expression in civics class, will find themselves in high dudgeon. "We abhor weapons of mass disrespect". "Complain to the human rights commission!" "Invoke the blasphemy act!" "The act will scorch Muslim hearts everywhere. The searing pain will never be forgotten." (the last from M. Khan) To say nothing of the frequent threats and occasional deeds involving knives and guns. It is these madmen and their enablers in whose honor qBurner burns.
Posted by: Bo Gardiner
|
September 23, 2010 5:40 PM
What do the following four things share in common?
1) CROSS-BURNING: Illuminating through fire an object which you value highly as representing your own religion and race, illegally on another's property, out of religious and racial intolerance, in order to intimidate with threats of violence, toward the goal of depriving people of core human rights, out of a bigoted belief in their lower human worth.
2) BUDDHA-BOMBING: Violently destroying irreplaceable treasures belonging to others, out of religious intolerance, in order to literally erase history, suppress dissent, and intimidate with threats of violence toward the goal of depriving people of core human rights, out of a bigoted belief in their lower human worth.
3) PZ DISAPPEARING HIS OWN KORAN FROM HIS OWN BOOKSHELF: Peacefully destroying a mass-produced item that's your own property, in your own home, to protest government abridgment of core human rights, to protest religious intolerance and the suppression of dissent, to protest intimidation and threats of violence, to protest those who seek to deprive people of core human rights, and to protest the bigotry of asserting the superiority in human worth of one group over another.
4) LIGHTING A VOTIVE IN CHURCH: To ask a divinity for assistance.
5) BURNING A CHRISTMAS TREE AFTER CHRISTMAS: To get rid of it or whatever.
What does PZ's action have in common with the rest? Nothing... except for the superficial elements of fire and religious symbols. Nothing of values, intentions, or goals. If you're going to lump PZ in with Buddha- and cross-burning, you might just as well throw in votive and tree burning. They're equally illogical analogies.
Suggesting PZ's action is like the Taliban or KKK is dishonest, immoral and ugly, just as much as is Andrew Brown who falsely claimed this week in the Guardian that Dawkins compared all British Catholics to Hitler.
Such breezy character assassination of those with whom we disagree must stop.
Posted by: Steven Mading
|
September 23, 2010 5:42 PM
Unlike a mass-produced book purchased from Amazon.com, there was only one copy of those statues, and it was the original copy, not a cheap one you can produce again by pressing a button on a machine.If you can't tell the difference between those two situations, then I can't help you.
Posted by: GeneralX
|
September 23, 2010 5:48 PM
"Does anybody here have the link to the video?"
Here,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljrZYrNDgZM&skipcontrinter=1
Nothing racial is said as far as I can make out.
Posted by: zzames6502
|
September 23, 2010 5:50 PM
I'm pretty sure the English Defence League don't give a fuck about the finer points of secularism or freedom of speech.
Steve Madding.
You forgot #3 - "We hate Pakis"
Posted by: Don1
|
September 23, 2010 5:55 PM
I'm afraid I haven't read all the comments, but I do know Gateshead. I strongly suspect that this was not about an ethical objection to the tenets of islam or free speech.
More likely to be some dickheads who had heard about koran burning and thought it might wind up the local pakkis. Get some excitement. I'd say that could be a breach of the peace. Is it legal to burn a cross,for example? That could be a
police matter?
Posted by: jschmeau
|
September 23, 2010 6:03 PM
Not familiar with the hate laws in the UK, so maybe someone can help me. If a resident of Gateshead shares the youtube link via email or social network could they also be arrested for suspicion of inciting blah blah? What if they attached a smileyface emoticon or maybe a "just kidding"? What if a UK resident watched the video twice? I realize that social networking sites have rules of their own regarding inappropriate content and may censor it, but would the act of sharing be considered illegal?
Posted by: cosmoscott42
|
September 23, 2010 6:30 PM
@#50 I am not sure why you would lump a book outlining one of the most fundamental aspects of modern biology along with a couple of historical books of myth/fable/legend. On the Origin of Species is not a book of myth that atheists use to find meaning in a cruel and difficult to figure out world. It relates a theory based on observations of the natural world. I do not think it is in the same class as the Bible, Quran, Bhagavad Gita, etc. I understand that you were trying to make a point, but perhaps The God Delusion would be a better choice...
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmd0JQT5RGH9tw98hgR4Au80-RC1x_9wWY
|
September 23, 2010 7:49 PM
I am presently engaging in email correspondence with a woman who lives in England. According to her, the tensions between Muslims and the rest of the English citizenry are reaching the boiling point. There have already been several riots of muslims, many neighborhoods are now "no-go" zones, and it appears that the best the authorities can do is keep a lid on things.
She says that this will ultimately boil over and the outcome will be very messy, to say the least.
In other words, the English are scared shitless.
--fireweaver
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
September 23, 2010 8:03 PM
Easy. Practically all Muslims in the UK are immigrants (1st to 3rd generation or something), and recognizable as such by looking at them, because they're from Pakistan or Bangladesh.
Here in Austria, the political party that tries to get votes out of public opposition to Islam is the xenophobe party, which aims it at the Turkish immigrants. In France, it's the likewise xenophobic Front National, which aims it at the immigrants from Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco. In the UK, it's the likewise xenophobic British National Party.
This is not like in the USA, where many Muslims are Muhammad Ali types or Nation of Islam types, and where the rest, though immigrants, come from such a wide selection of countries that there wouldn't be a political point in being publically afraid of the whole bunch.
And I bet that over here the Islamophobia would be a lot milder if the Muslim immigrants were pale, blond, green-eyed Tatars!
The way the Qur'ān is viewed in Islām isn't like how the Bible is viewed in Christianity. It's much more like how Jesus is viewed in Christianity. Jesus is "the Word of God made flesh"; the Qur'ān is "the Word of God made ink on paper". Jesus is "conceived, not created"; the Qur'ān is "spoken, not created". Jesus is preexistent, having lived with the Father in Heaven since forever before He was incarnated; the Qur'ān is preexistent, a master copy having existed with God in Heaven since forever before It was dictated.
That's why translation aren't considered to be the real thing (and are often entitled "The Meaning of the Qur'ān" or suchlike). Of course God actually spoke His Word, before the creation of time, in poetic preclassical Arabic with plenty of words that don't exist anywhere else in the entire Arabic language but just so happen to make sense in Aramaic.
You, sir, are paranoid to the point of delusion so obvious that you should be able recognize it yourself. You should urgently seek professional help. I'm serious.
Good idea!
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
September 23, 2010 8:09 PM
You mean one of them.
Inductive reasoning is a logical fallacy.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
September 23, 2010 8:13 PM
Actually, it's pretty typical for paranoid delusions that the afflicted would lack insight into their condition.Bit like with the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Posted by: lykex
|
September 23, 2010 8:14 PM
RE: burning the Origin of Species
It would serve the purpose of pre-empting the inevitable accusation of Fundamentalist Atheism.
Although, I have to admit, the religious morons would probably ignore that part and make the accusation anyway. They do have an amazing capacity for ignoring inconvenient information.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
September 23, 2010 8:32 PM
Was the Koran rescued from the trash can after the cracker incident or was that a new(er) copy?
Just remember: the Thought Police are watching - who do you think gives Santa Claus his list?
Posted by: Marella
|
September 23, 2010 8:39 PM
The best use for religious publications I've heard of. Kudos!
Posted by: j-brisby
|
September 23, 2010 8:42 PM
Burning books is one line I won't cross.
Posted by: lenoxuss
|
September 23, 2010 9:25 PM
I do find book-burning mildly skeevy… well, I did. Now, I feel like it's a fucking duty, especially for the people of Gateshead.
That the book in question has something or other to do with something called Islam (so I've heard) is, in a way, irrelevant. Where that Florida pastor did Koran-burning as an act of bigotry, the Gateshead police have single-handedly reversed it into an act of civil disobedience, with a message targeted strictly at anyone and everyone who would consider the book's destruction a criminal offense. If the people had been arrested for burning Harry Potter books, it would be no different.
djmallett #85: Seconded. Don't let the "you wouldn't do that to Islam" whiners win this one.
Posted by: funagenda
|
September 23, 2010 9:31 PM
I once saw a internet enabled toaster that used to toast today’s weather on to the slices of bread, I'd buy one if it did random phrases from the various (un)holly books, in their original languages lest I accidentally read any of the tripe and it puts me off my breakfast.
Posted by: lenoxuss
|
September 23, 2010 9:46 PM
I do have to say this about racism, though… I believe it is entirely possible for a person to be racist about religion, in part because of the significant overlap of the two under certain circumstances. (How much anti-Semitism is racism, and how much is some sort of philosophical disagreement with the premises of Judaism?)
However, drawing Muhammad is not "racist", because it's nothing more than the act of depicting a major historical figure, and members of the religion have independently decided that it's an affront to them, without being able to provide a justification for the claim. There still exist racist depictions of Muhammad (arguably, some of those Danish cartoons), but that's just a small subcategory of possible images.
As for burning Korans, that comes close to the edge of implying intolerance, but incidents like this push it well back (as I said in my last comment) into the light of day.
It feels difficult for me to even write these words, but if someone were arrested for saying "nigger", especially if it hadn't actually been said out of racism, I would follow that someone's lead, at least just once.
(And I happen to think that it's an ugly enough word that no one has the excuse to use it, or any variation thereof, in reference to human beings. Despite what some say, the n-word has not gained an "affectionate" connotation or been "reclaimed"; it almost always comes down to meaning, roughly, "black person oh-by-the-way-black-people-are-all-like-X", even when used by African-Americans.)
Posted by: Vene
|
September 23, 2010 9:50 PM
You're going to destroy another one? *shrug*
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/24/desecrated.jpg
Posted by: lenoxuss
|
September 23, 2010 10:03 PM
self, earlier:
I could have phrased that much better to reflect how I actually feel about the word, which is partially the opposite of what I wrote…
As used in lower-class black neighborhoods, "nigga" has the strong connotation of "certain kinds of black people; 'authentic' black people, blacks like ourselves". It can still be used affectionately, but it's got that ugly background to it. (An affectionate slur?)
No non-racist who uses the word would apply it to Barack Obama. Conversely, when the US elects its first openly homosexual president, gay folks of all classes will be willing to call him a faggot, with accompanying humorous/ironic undertones. I dunno what caused this difference, or even whether that difference is mainly just in my head… whatever.
Posted by: davidking20007
|
September 23, 2010 10:11 PM
Perhaps what's needed is a mass, world-wide coordinated event where millions and millions of people simultaneously dispose of a "holy" book. It is certain that the event would be matched by a mass, world-wide explosion of heads of stridently religious folk. Let's call it the Third Law Project.
Posted by: Pondering Ape
|
September 23, 2010 10:51 PM
I find it odd that some commentators ascribe responsibility for actions solely with the UK police. The muslim community have established a defacto sharia law in many countries where acts (legal under domestic law) are responded to by either the police action or employers dismissing or disciplining staff for private acts. Effectively the Koran has been raised above criticism, parody or rebuke as demanded by Islam (most notably following the Satanic Verses -all those who criticise the prophet or the koran are punishable by death). This is a status achieved by the western fear of the violent consequences of such act which have arisen out of real acts of retribution. Other religions do not have such `protection' as they generally do not threaten in the same way. Before there is too much bleating about `moderate' muslims where are they shouting about freedoms of speech, association etc? Until they stand up for something they stand for nothing or are silently supporting the radicals.
Posted by: ian.k.alexander
|
September 23, 2010 11:04 PM
Word up PZ. I couldn't do the same, because I would never pay money to read a religious text in the first place.
Posted by: Juicyheart
|
September 23, 2010 11:21 PM
Yes, my first comment was loaded. More so than I intended. I wrote it on an iphone during my lunch hour. But if the article had said:
"Men arrested in Gateshead over suspected cross burning
Six Tyneside men have been arrested after filming themselves apparently burning crosses on the anniversary of the Rodney King riots.
Police said the men, all from the Gateshead area, were detained after a video appeared on the internet.
They were arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred and released on bail pending further inquiries.
.....
The kind of behaviour displayed in this video is not representative of our community as a whole. Our community is one of mutual respect and we continue to work together with community leaders, residents and people of all faiths and beliefs to maintain good community relations"
Would PZ have jumped to the conclusion that the police were showing undue deference to religion and run off and burn his own cross? My reading of the article PZ links to, is the authorities got involved not because they felt the burnings were religiously insensitive, but because they were done to incite racism or intimidate a racial minority, using a religious artifact. I choose to compare this to cross burning, because it is a religious symbol that has been co-opted for just such uses in our own culture. And I felt that PZ was burning his koran in solidarity with these fucks.
While I am for the freedom of speech, it is a 'tool' and like all tools can be misused. The traditional example is to yell "Fire" in a crowded space, and calling in a false bomb threat would also be crossing the line. In 2003, with Virginia v. Black et al., the USSC ruled that cross burning WITH THE INTENT TO INTIMIDATE is not protected speech (I concede that the current USSC would overturn this precedent), even on your own property. And the reasoning here is that using your free speech to intimidate, or threaten, someone away from their speech defeats the whole purpose, which is to allow for discourse about how we ALL are governed. So if some racist fuck in America got themselves arrested for burning a cross to intimidate the African-American community/vote or incite violence against that community, would PZ be burning a cross in solidarity, either because free speech is being trampled or a religious symbol is being given a deference? And yes I am a pacifist, and I do feel the incitement of physical violence against a person or group falls outside of protected speech, on moral if not legal grounds.
The cry of, "but cross burning is taboo in our (American) society, and only racists do so," I think begs the point: which is these people were detained because the police thought the koran burnings were being used as a modified cross burning. (I do concede that finding an 6' koran to burn would be a bit of work, and anything less won't have quite the same impact as a cross burning.) The difference this argument makes, seems to be how traditional a symbol of racism the two burnings are. Cross burning is a very traditional expression of racism, so its very bad. While koran burning is an emerging form, so we can ignore it? Really? And I do mean racism, because I don't think a Muslim that looks WASPy/Asian/African would be threatened physically by this type of punk, but anybody who looks Mid-Eastern enough would be regardless of their religion. It also implies that cross burning should be considered offensive, while burning someones sacred text shouldn't be. Really? How are we to determine what's appropriately offensive and whats not? Or it seems to be say 'Of course PZ will respect our taboos, but the taboos of others... eh ." The number of muslims calling or fatwas is small compare to the number of muslims worldwide. Do we really need to insult them all to thumb our noses at an obnoxious,and perhaps dangerous, minority? Do we insult all christians because some preachers promote violence against abortion providers? I mean where's our post a picture of a crucifix submerged in menstrual fluid day? In general, I think care is needed when condoning any foam of speech: PZ rallied against the New Scientist cover story "Darwin was Wrong" because it fed into ideologies that he is opposed to. I think the racist element, is ready to co-opt atheistic irreverence for religion for their own purposes. And unless we don't care about that, we need to guard against it.
Another objection seems to be that the burnings were done privately. From one of the links above, the burnings appeared to have happened in a (privately owned, but open to the public) bar or tavern and then posted to the internet, and somehow was brought to the attention of the authorities. This seems to undermine a claim to privacy. And to what end is a private koran burning? I mean how badass are you if you burn the koran, but don't let the muslims know? What would Crackergate be if PZ never blogged about it? Are we really to believe that people got together burned the koran, and didn't care if the muslim portion of their community knew about it. "lets burn the koran but don't tell the towel heads" Really? The whole point of koran burning is to either say we won't be intimidated by you, or fuck you. And both require that the muslim community is aware of the burning, otherwise it's just some sort of masturbation or circle jerk.
I think I had more to say, but I've run out of steam.
Posted by: DLC
|
September 23, 2010 11:45 PM
And you wonder why some on the left in this country demand that . . . Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. . .
Posted by: Juicyheart
|
September 23, 2010 11:54 PM
@152 amen
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
September 24, 2010 1:33 AM
@152:
I can't hear you over creationism in the classroom.
Posted by: MarcusA1971
|
September 24, 2010 2:35 AM
Dear Professor Myers,
Please do not burn your copy of the Koran. Not because I think it is worthwile, or that I give a flying f*ck about "offending" Muslims. Because paper is a finite and precious commodity. Also, let's leave the burning of books that contain ideas one might disagree with to the religious, Nazis and Tea Baggers (is that a tautology?).
Recycle it instead. The camel f*ckers seem to find that just as offensive.The Taliban, when they controlled Afghanistan banned the recycling of all paper, in case any copies or even pages of the Koran mistakenly ended up being pulped.
Posted by: Commodorewolf
|
September 24, 2010 2:58 AM
you really need any of those book on your shelves these days? burn em all and get E copies on your I-pad for when you need a reference, get rid of the clutter
Posted by: Rorschach
|
September 24, 2010 2:59 AM
MarcusA,
why don't you take your racist slurs somewhere else.
Posted by: Commodorewolf
|
September 24, 2010 3:00 AM
you really need any of those book on your shelves these days? burn/recycle 'em all and get E copies on your I-pad for when you need a reference, get rid of the clutter
Posted by: Alice Bluegown
|
September 24, 2010 4:39 AM
@ fireweaver # 135 - strange, I live in England, and the situation you describe is utterly unfamiliar to me. Is it possible your correspondent has an agenda?
@ j-brisby # 142 - agreed: there is just something about book-burning I find repugnant (maybe having written one or two has something to do with it!)
@ MarcusA1971 # 155 - there is a particular phrase in your post that tends to invalidate whatever reasonable point you were trying to make. Can you guess what it is?
Posted by: C. Sullivan
|
September 24, 2010 4:46 AM
Those who wish to protest forcefully against the expectation that everyone should treat Islamic symbols with reverence, but who find book-burning distasteful, might consider setting fire to a printed copy of the Shahadah. The Shahadah is the Islamic statement of faith, meaning something like "there is no God but God and Mohammed is his Prophet". A Google image search for "Shahadah" turns up plenty of versions in different styles of Arabic calligraphy, which of course can be easily downloaded and printed.
Posted by: MutantJedi
|
September 24, 2010 4:46 AM
I have a hard time with the idea of burning books.
As many of the comments wittingly or unwittingly illuminate, burning has its own symbolism. Book burners have not been a very progressive bunch in the past. Normally, these are groups that are strongly associated with willful passionate ignorance. They have been enemies of reality based thinkers or at extreme odds with humanist values. When I think of book burners, I think of a person more like Glenn Beck than Richard Dawkins.
I have no problems stabbing a cracker with a rusty nail or drawing chalk stick figures named Mohammed. But, burning stuff just seems to cross some sort of ill defined line.
Recycle the book back into pulp. It will likely end up as toilet paper.
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
September 24, 2010 5:11 AM
I think many of you misunderestimated what PZ meant when he said he was going to burn his copy of the Koran/Qu'Ran/Korean BBQ/Harvey Korman...THIS is what is really going on.
Posted by: efctony
|
September 24, 2010 6:03 AM
The people of Gateshead have differing religions and differing levels of belief. The only thing that is reasonably sure is that they are all near religious in their veneration of Newcastle United.
Jackie Milburn was a legendary player for Newcastle, way back when they actually won something. By all accounts he was a really nice chap. But as you're making a point about causing offence can I suggest printing out a picture of the Newcastle United 1951 Cup Winning team and burning that?
Some professor in the States burning a Koran is likely to get "meh" as a response in Gateshead. But a video on YouTube of you burning a picture of Jackie Milburn is bound to get a response.
Posted by: SEF
|
September 24, 2010 6:44 AM
@ MutantJedi #161:
Skip some ecologically costly stages - use the pages from it directly as poop-scoopers.
Posted by: bigrab.wordpress.com
|
September 24, 2010 7:17 AM
Got to be careful. I'm an atheist and humanist too but the burning of the Koran in England has not really very much to do with religion at all. It is more to stir up racial hatred and division against Asians.
I'm not sure of the profile of those who did this but there is a dark underbelly of extreme right wing organisations in the UK just now and I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were involved.
Yeah sure, continue to argue the case against religion based on science, reason and debate.
What's the betting though that those involved would consider themselves Christians and are probably not very intelligent?
I won't cheer such idiots on and neither should you.
Posted by: Dancaban
|
September 24, 2010 7:26 AM
My mate once pulled a bird from Gats-hid once. She said she had a really good job. Putting the bristles on paintbrushes.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
September 24, 2010 7:28 AM
No, it fucking is not.The Quran is nothing but a collection of ancient myths, as is the Bible, and if you own a copy, it's yours, to burn or use as toilet paper or do whatever you see fit.These books have no intrinsic "holy" value, the fact that some homicidal scumbags threaten you with death for burning it, or otherwise questioning your superstitions in any way, doesn't mean rational folks have to cave in to this.
Richard Dawkins is not going to declare a fatwah on me if I burn my copy of TGD tomorrow, there is a difference.Get some perspective ffs.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
September 24, 2010 7:51 AM
Are you familiar with specific details in this case, Rorschach (Such as the fact that these folks weren't filmed saying those things), or are you claiming it can't be?Posted by: SEF
|
September 24, 2010 7:51 AM
The Telegraph has more information on the act and its enactors. The English Defence League seems to have extremely dodgy motivations in general (rather like the young males on the muslim side who regard seasonal riots as their regular entertainment and who deliberately contrived to take offence at the Dutch cartoons long after their actual publication).
Posted by: Rorschach
|
September 24, 2010 7:57 AM
Rutee, I'm reading the same news articles you are I presume, and I'm saying that the extraordinary claim would be to prove that this was more than a pub stunt, and indeed meant to incite racial hatred.
Posted by: Anri
|
September 24, 2010 8:21 AM
Free expression does not require caution - that's the whole point.
Not being a mind reader myself, I'm going to concentrate on the act, not the motives.
And scum get free expression, too. Even if you don't like what they're saying.
Otherwise it's not free, right?
And ridicule, never forget ridicule.
"One horse-laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms. It is not only more effective; it is also vastly more intelligent."
- H L Mencken
Who cares?
I'm actually asking - who cares, and why? Please explain.
Um, we're arguing against their arrests. Not really the same thing as cheering them on.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
September 24, 2010 8:25 AM
Uhhh, I think we may have just gotten it from The Telegraph, actually, but carry on, in general. I keep hearing "Islam is not a race, therefore it's impossible to be racist while criticizing Islam", even on this blog, and I can only ever remember 4 or 5 people's specific positions on the matter, sorry.Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
September 24, 2010 9:04 AM
@159
Wow as much as I hate to say it...and as much as I might agree with the nonsense of the slur...I gotta call you out on tone trolling. One word does not invalidate an argument, even if it shows the speaker to be an ass (and it does). So yeah. "Your Concern is Noted"
Posted by: Jessie
|
September 24, 2010 9:04 AM
There appears to be extensive self-censorship on this in the UK media. I wouldn't have known about it if I hadn't read about it here. I find that rather unsettling.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
September 24, 2010 9:07 AM
@174
Welcome to the American way...we've been expecting you sister/brother/zister/undecided.
Posted by: SEF
|
September 24, 2010 9:31 AM
@ Jessie #174:
Which part of the UK media? The Google UK news listings certainly shows up a collection of entries for it, with a selection of the usual online news purveyors, under its general UK news subsection. The TV version of the news can be very limited (biased?) in what it covers. I don't listen to radio at all nor read physical newspapers, so I wouldn't know about their coverage of the issue.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
September 24, 2010 9:40 AM
Is the American Way the one where if you disagree, or if you criticize a controversial choice, you're against Freedom of Speech? The one where even suggesting, as a private citizen, that someone not do some controversial speech because, I don't know, that controversy might actually be well founded, is equated to censorship and a tyranny against the freedom of speech?God Damn, Ing, tone down the nationalism.
Posted by: CalGeorge
|
September 24, 2010 9:44 AM
Banned Book Week starts tomorrow. Wait until then to alienate your university colleagues and the library folks.
The classy thing to do:
Just shred some pages (to save the air) and replace that mutilated book with a shiny new one and then donate copies to every library in your area. That way, people will understand what you are saying.
I'm imagining a puffy "alter" of shredded Koran pages in the corner of your living room!
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
September 24, 2010 9:45 AM
@177
Um wtf? Reading comprehension. I was mocking the low standards of journalism the US has.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
September 24, 2010 9:48 AM
I say any display has to have the right framing and tone. It has to be clear this is a demonstration promoting freedom and against threats of violence and that part of it is that we think better of moderate and liberal Muslims than to group them in with the violent nuts. Something akin to the patriotic flag burning Penn and Teller did
Posted by: Jessie
|
September 24, 2010 9:53 AM
SEF #176
I can see articles in Mirror, Telegraph and Daily Mail online. The BBC item yesterday was hidden under 'Tyne' region, so required a bit of a search.
I haven't looked at all sources. Do you believe it has been as well covered in the UK as the story of the US pastor who threatened to do the same thing but didn't?
I do realize that there is a feeling that publicity will cause problems but there was also censorship over the cartoons. I don't like being limited in what I am allowed to know.
Posted by: SEF
|
September 24, 2010 10:07 AM
@ Jessie #181:
It may end up being as well covered. It's rather hard to tell as yet.
Note that the US pastor went to considerable lengths to self-publicise his proposed action (as far as I could gather) in advance of (not) doing anything, whereas the UK bods seem to have merely acted on impulse and have only later been caught acting because they filmed themselves (an emergent theme among less controversial UK criminals!). I'm not sure to what extent people have to have gone out of their way to find that video and take offence at it (as with the ludicrous Paul Chambers "terrorism" case).
Posted by: Don Quijote
|
September 24, 2010 10:07 AM
Islam is not a race, neither is Judaism.
Who will be first to scream ISRAEL?
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
September 24, 2010 10:09 AM
@183
Is what real?
Posted by: Peter Ashby
|
September 24, 2010 10:36 AM
The problem is the previous govt passed a law defining moslems as a race. So the police are treating this as race hatred or incitement to racial hatred. I haven't seen the video but unless they uttered words like '**** Pakis' I don't see why they should have to answer to anything or anyone except perhaps those running the pub whose premises they used.
They are undoubtedly racist scumbags, but that doesn't mean the police should be able to use bad law to convict them of disposing of their own property. I'm not sure but I think up here in Scotland that particular writ doesn't run. Though they might have been done for sectarian language if the legislation on that one recognises any other belief systems other than catholic and protestant.
Posted by: Forbidden
|
September 24, 2010 11:08 AM
It may be too late, but I just had an idea, instead of burning the book:
DRAW MOHAMED ON THE COVER!
You get the level of insult across without the creepy book-burning overtones and don't end up depriving yourself of research material while also not polluting the environment.
Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
|
September 24, 2010 11:13 AM
Don Quijote:
Race is a social construct. In some times and places, Jews have been considered a separate race. In others, they're considered white.
There are good arguments that Muslims aren't a race, but the analogy to Judaism undercuts your position.
(If someone is stirring up hatred, whether the group they're attacking is a race isn't the main problem, and "Islam isn't a race" is a distraction unless we're in court.)
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
September 24, 2010 11:21 AM
Exactly, Peter Ashby. However much a group of assholes, there's probably no reason to throw them in prison.
Posted by: Don Quijote
|
September 24, 2010 11:25 AM
Very funny Ing, made me laugh.
By the way, PC Smith @41 sounds like he was going through Youtube in the east-end of London in about 1950. I do sympathize though, writing with a Geordie accent is as difficult as speaking it or understanding it, if you´re not a Geordie that is.
Posted by: Duncan
|
September 24, 2010 12:49 PM
I got a response from northumbria police, that basically says that because this is an ongoing criminal investigation, they can't debate the rights and wrongs of it.
Posted by: Don Quijote
|
September 24, 2010 12:59 PM
Vicki:
A race is one of the main groups that humans can be divided into according to their physical differences. For example the colour of their skin,Caucasian/Mongolian, etc race.
The men in Gateshead were arrested "on suspicion of inciting racial hatred". If they go to court the definition will be crucial.
The Northumbria Police and the Gateshead Council have said. "Our community is one of mutual respect and we continue to work together with community leaders, residents and poeple of all faiths and beliefs to maintain good community relations".
William Dove of the International Business Times has written, "Islam is a faith and is no more a race than tha Catholic Church is.If these men by their ogreish and uncivilised acts can be arrested on such grounds one might think that the likes of Richard Dawkins, Stehen Fry and Peter Tatchell might get their collars felt for their protests and comments against the Pope and the Catholic Church last week. After all one could argue that Catholics might view the Pope as being almost as holy as the Koran is to muslims, so why the double standards? These arrests are a deeply disturbing sign and are yet more evidence of the erosion of civil liberties that has occurred in Britain in the last few years."
My analogy to Judaism was to ask, what if these men had burnt the Torah, would that be considered racist? We can plainly see that Muslims come from different races as do Jews. Would people perceive the Jews as a race because of the bogus state of Israel?
Posted by: lenoxuss
|
September 24, 2010 1:31 PM
Pondering Ape @ 149: Very good point. The apparent tolerance of enforced Sharia (which I still can't even believe) — that's the base layer of bullshit here.
C. Sullivan @ 160: Excellent! It's like the vegetarian substitute. I might try it myself!
Posted by: grudgedk
|
September 25, 2010 1:52 AM
WTF? These days the cops will arrest you for *not* representing your community? So if you walk down a crips neighborhood with a red bandanna, assuming you don't get murdered by thugs, the cops will arrest you instead? Man. I'm going to go get my own community. Get away from all those crazy fucks.Posted by: Franklin Percival
|
September 25, 2010 2:34 AM
Pish and fucking tush. I was told to turn around with my arms raised and my legs parted by some black security guy when I attended court to support a friend of mine yesterday morning. I made a cheap remark about my luck having changed with a black guy waving his wand behind me, at which his female oppo could barely contain her mirth, but of course I was told I had to leave the building, by a couple of police persons.
People are too damned sensitive these days. A fortnight or so on Pharyngula should be compulsory as a rite of passage for folk to be given admission to the adult world.
Posted by: nelc
|
September 25, 2010 11:58 PM
Oh, for fuck's sake! EDL is the English Defence League. Look it up, I'll wait here.
So, just to make it explicit, the video in question was posted by the EDL, which is a grotty little extreme right-wing organization which is much concerned about immigration. Context is everything, and in the context of the EDL burning a Koran in Gateshead, an area with a high proportion of immigrants in the population, the Koran burning -- while going on about September 11th and "our boys" in Afghanistan -- is an act of overt racist provocation or intimidation.
How exactly equivalent to burning crosses by the KKK I'll leave to someone else to sort out, but I'd say it's pretty damn close. But I don't really care.
Notice the date of the Act used to arrest these racist dickheads, it was quoted above: 1986. The Act was not brought about as some form of modern appeasement of the Muslim population, it was brought in to combat the active and violent racism of people like the National Front (an earlier version and progenitors of the BNP), and probably the parents of these jolly fellows.
Perhaps it's because the accents and mode of dress are unfamiliar to non-Brits, but to a Brit there are numerous markers that make it obvious that these are not Oxford scholars making a point about freedom of speech, but racist dickheads psyching themselves up to commit an act of violence against people of an ethnic group other than their own, and wishing others to do the same.
The offence is plainly one of public order, and there is no way that a responsible police officer could ignore it in Britain. I'm sorry to bring it up again, but it would be like a Sheriff ignoring a cross-burning: it would mean the police were on the side of the racists. There's enough of that goes on already, alas, so I have to support the decision to prosecute.
PZ, what you do with your property is your business. But by burning your Koran as a protest against these twats getting what they deserve, you're placing yourself on the side of the racists. You are siding with the British equivalent of the KKK, and all those fools who think that Barack Obama being a Muslim would make him unfit for the office.
And for pity's sake stop, please, STOP coming to knee-jerk conclusions about another country without doing any damn research. Britain is not the US. We have a different history. Just because we do things differently to you doesn't make us automatically wrong. Learn to do what you do in the lab, and ask questions instead of leaping to conclusions.
Posted by: nelc
|
September 26, 2010 12:04 AM
And for pity's sake, they're wearing masks! These are not good guys, and they aren't doing a good thing.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
September 26, 2010 9:11 AM
It may be illegal to wear masks in Denmark (srsly), but I was unaware that that was the case in Gateshead as well.So fucking what is they're not good guys? They have a right not to be - if you deny them that right - guess what? - you're not one of the good guys either.
Posted by: GravityIsJustATheory
|
September 26, 2010 9:24 AM
But there are a lot of racists and other bigots who either a) are too ignorant to know that, or b) don't care, or c) realise that hating Muslims allows them to hate many different races and nationalities simultaneously, while claiming they ere really just criticising their religion.
Posted by: KG
|
September 26, 2010 9:35 AM
No, it isn't. Races are social categories. It is true people are usually assigned to races largely on the basis of physical appearance, but the race an individual is assigned to can differ from one place to another. There is no racial classification "Hispanic" (or "Caucasian" for that matter) in Europe; many classified white in Brazil would be classified "mixed race" in the UK, and either "Hispanic" or "African American" in the US, etc.
On the topic of the post: the men were arrested for incitement to racial hatred, an offence under the Public Order Act 1986. This arrest was, in my opinion, both oppressive and stupid - scum like these racist shits will revel in the publicity anyway - but it was not, as many ignoramuses here have claimed, anything to do with enforcement of Sharia (and yes, they probably would have been arrested for doing the same - posting a video of the book being burned - with a copy of the Torah). And PZ, your "I'll get rid of my Koran" just makes you look a petulant idiot: it's a useful reference book.
Posted by: nelc
|
September 26, 2010 2:08 PM
Sili @197: No, it's not illegal to wear masks in Gateshead — though you have to be aware that there's a certain irony to these berks wearing scarves over their faces while protesting (in their back garden) about Islam doing whatever it is they think it's doing — but it should be an adequate sign that they aren't people to emulate, and neither are they commiting an act worth defending. At least everyone was aware of who yon Florida nutter was.
PZ is almost completely in the wrong in his threat to emulate these retards as a show of solidarity.
I'm sorry, but even in America, as I understand it, Free Speech stops at shouting "Theatre!" in a crowded fire. Or something like that. And this is, in a British context, one of those cases. Yes, religion is silly, and so is revering old books to the extent that you'll risk your life or threaten someone else's, but people are like that, so the police have a duty to squelch provocation of that order. They arrest drunks for pissing on war memorials, too, and I see that as an equivalent offence (except with more ignorance and less malice, maybe).
And, yes, "inciting racial hatred" is a silly name for the offence in question — not least because it allows clever barristers to argue that such-and-such an offence wasn't actually racial per se, so his evil ethnicist bastard clients should be let off — but it's what it's called, so that's what we have to go with.
Posted by: nelc
|
September 26, 2010 2:18 PM
Yeah, they have a perfect right to be bad guys, even beyond the point of breaking the law by beating up Pakis (which it is not too much of a forecast, or even backcast, believe me). But guess what? You break the law, you get arrested.
Posted by: danielm
|
September 26, 2010 5:23 PM
nelc@201 did you just say that a bunch of racists would "have a perfect right to be bad guys, even beyond the point of breaking the law by beating up Pakis"? Either I'm totally misunderstanding you, or you are a complete wanker.
There is a huge, massive, difference between burning a dead tree (EVEN if it has magic words on it) than burning a cross on somebody else's property or even burning somebody else's property or attacking somebody else.
I think there has to be a line between voicing dissent, showing disrespect and "causing harm", but setting fire to personal property (even in public, as it were) shouldn't be across it - but then everyone in Britain strives SO hard to be PC that if a muslim so much as coughs they try to find someone to blame for giving it to them, all the while generally ignoring (or even funding via the taxpayer!) evil monsters like Anjem Choudary.
Posted by: nelc
|
September 26, 2010 10:34 PM
Danielm, I think you're misunderstanding me. Possibly I phrased it badly.
As I said previously, the video was posted by the EDL, which is not an organisation of nice guys. These are not atheists protesting the idolisation of books of silly ideas, or raging against the overly PC attitudes of British society (real or imagined), these are bigots, burning books to provoke and intimidate those of ethnic groups not their own. I don't know why some commenters in this thread refuse to accept that, or think a pedantic argument about what constitutes race is more important.
Burning this book is supposed to initiate violence, either to psyche themselves up for it by the symbolic burning of their target, or by provoking some hothead from their victimized group into attacking them. Or someone else, for that matter. As long as there is a violent reaction following this display, they'll be satisfied. So, burning a holy book isn't the same as attacking someone, no, but one is meant to follow the other. And that is what they were arrested for.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm4hqmqetmDmmFDRKq7yBiVnTodkrP8JxY
|
April 10, 2011 11:07 AM
It's happened again. A member of the arsehole BNP has been arrested today for burning a koran in his garden. I fear for the future of a country which makes the burning of words illegal.