Pharyngula

Posted by: RockyHarper | September 26, 2010 10:57 AM

There's another way to get rid of your holy books. You can use a few pages at a time if you run out of toliet paper.

Posted by: Kome | September 26, 2010 10:58 AM

There's more utility in using those books for compost than for their intended use. I would've recommended using a paper shredder first, to get the whole thing started. But I understand - you already paid them more attention than their worth. No sense getting all antsy about it.

Hope the flowers bloom beautifully, PZ!

Posted by: koyote_ken | September 26, 2010 11:01 AM

How soon before a Fatwah is declared on YOU, PZ?

...(tremble, tremble.....)

Posted by: ryedo40 | September 26, 2010 11:08 AM

That poor plant.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | September 26, 2010 11:09 AM

Beautiful description. And beautiful flowers. I have the same kind in my front yard, although they haven't looked as good as that since June.

(I have to giggle at the classic herringbone jacket, though - elitist professor!)

Posted by: Sastra | September 26, 2010 11:13 AM

The insistence by the faithful that we all must treat their precioussses as magical and inviolable has convinced me to re-evaluate the books on my shelves, and I've decided that no, they aren't worth keeping.

No, I think this is a bad idea.

Not because getting rid of the holy books is "disrespectful," but because such books are very useful as references. We all need these texts as resources in debate, and ought to be both familiar and comfortable with them. The fact that they're pernicious is all the more reason to keep them.

Most atheist organizations have libraries filled with theology and religious books. The library at James Randi's JREF has an incredible amount of pro-paranormal books, many of them out-of-print.

I also think the symbolic nature of what you're doing will be taken the wrong way. Instead of being seen as yet another expression of disrespect for the "sacred," it will feed into the current criticisms made of gnu atheists -- that we aren't familiar with what we criticize, and can't deal with it intellectually.

I'd suggest keeping them in the bathroom as a compromise, but that's probably where they're most likely to be regularly read.

Posted by: ibyea | September 26, 2010 11:14 AM

@Sastra
That is why we have the internet, for reference. :)

Posted by: Seti | September 26, 2010 11:19 AM

Best use for b*llshit - as fertiliser.
Darned good soil you have there, by the way PZ - bet you get some lovely roses on it.

Posted by: acitta1 | September 26, 2010 11:26 AM

I am not offended by whatever someone wants do do with some old book of mythology and nonsense that they own. However, I would like to point out that it is only because of modern industrial production making books plentiful and cheap, that allows us to be cavalier about the survival of any particular copy. Before the printing press was invented, the reproduction of books was very labour intensive. We only have copies of the literature of the ancient world because of the many scribes through the centuries that laboured to recopy them. So, the destruction of any book used to be serious business because it could mean the loss of something forever. That is why book burning was used by ecclesiastical and civil authorities to control access to knowledge. What was lost to scholars forever in a disaster like the burning of the library of Alexandria or the destruction of the literature of central American tribes by European colonisers? Even books that we despise have value for the historical understanding of societies that valued them.

Posted by: Pikeman85 | September 26, 2010 11:28 AM

This is the most "spiritual" (to use a bad word - can't quite pick up the right one) post I've ever read on what several religions would call blasphemy.

Bravo, PZ, bravo. You have me tempted to bury my two Bibles and Qu'ran, but I'll hold off for now. I will likely post this to several friends, though.

Posted by: A. Nuran | September 26, 2010 11:29 AM

Rocky Harper - the paper just isn't that absorbent.

Posted by: KIN | September 26, 2010 11:36 AM

What a great thing.

Happy peaceful Sunday everybody.

Posted by: quasirob | September 26, 2010 11:37 AM

That plant should grow nicely with all that nutritious bullshit feeding its roots.

Posted by: Sastra | September 26, 2010 11:41 AM

PZ Myers #17 wrote:

The books are on the internet. I don't need hard copies.

True. I guess I just find some advantages in being able to dig around in an actual book. Maybe it's a matter of taste.

I should mention that these are books sent to me by believers to convince me of the truth of their nonsense. Send me more, they'll meet similar fates.

What, you were only sent two books? Your gesture was symbolic.

In which case, you're making a very rash promise. If I were Ken Ham or some other Christian, I would start up a "Send PZ a Koran" contest. How big is your garden?

Bet you'd see how far the phrase "similar fate" can be stretched. It won't involve work with a shovel. Better not involve work at all.

Posted by: Case Sensitive | September 26, 2010 11:43 AM

PZ missed a great opportunity for a semi-controlled experiment. Bury copies of the Koran, the Bible and some atheist work of your choosing in the same soil at similar depths, plant identical perennials over each, water and fertilize all in the same way and see which grows best (optimally someone else should bury the books so PZ doesn't know which is where and isn't subconsciously tempted to nurture the atheist plant inappropriately).

Also, the odds of that mum surviving and reappearing next spring are minimal in any case (mums without new basal growth in a subarctic Minnesota climate are likely doomed, even without religious tomes inhibiting their root growth).

Posted by: John Sven | September 26, 2010 11:44 AM

Wow... Your well hydrated, must of drank a few extra glasses of water this morn.

Posted by: quasirob | September 26, 2010 11:48 AM

@PZ

The books are on the internet. I don't need hard copies.

I'm tempted to create a website which has the full text of each book (maybe several copies of each) and then say once an hour delete it all! Then over the next hour it creates lots more copies from a single backup ready for the next hourly deletion. I could destroy hundreds of copies per day!

Posted by: Gerald Snit | September 26, 2010 11:50 AM

But PZ, you're endangering the troops!

Posted by: rufustfirefly66 | September 26, 2010 11:52 AM

When books are buried, people too, in the end, will be buried. . . ;-) (Just so it's obvious it's a bad joke)

Posted by: Iain Walker | September 26, 2010 11:56 AM

Sastra (#29):

True. I guess I just find some advantages in being able to dig around in an actual book. Maybe it's a matter of taste.

Which for some reason made me think of:

Ms. Calendar: Well, it was your book that started all the trouble, not a computer. Honestly, what is it about them that bothers you so much?
Giles: The smell.
Ms. Calendar: Computer's don't smell, Rupert.
Giles: I know! Smell is the most powerful trigger to the memory there is. A certain flower or a, a whiff of smoke can bring up experiences... long forgotten. Books smell. Musty and, and, and, and rich. The knowledge gained from a computer, is, uh, it... it has no, no texture, no, no context. It's, it's there and then it's gone. If it's to last, then, then the getting of knowledge should be, uh, tangible, it should be, um... smelly.
Ms. Calendar: Well! You really are an old-fashioned boy, aren't you?
(I Robot, You Jane)

Think of it this way: thanks to PZ, these two books are going to get even richer and smellier.

Posted by: Mark Myers | September 26, 2010 11:56 AM

As a Nurseryman and Landscaper, I am impressed with PZs planting technique. Excellent soil in your garden, by the way.

Apparently sunny location for sun-loving plant? Check
Correct hole size? Check.
Careful handling and support of root ball? Check.
Correct Planting depth? Check.
Light compaction of disturbed soil to approximate natural soil structure? Check
Remembered to give it a drink? Check.

All in under 2.5 minutes, while wearing a sportcoat! Planting rate meets rate expectation and exceeds rate of some of my plantspersons.

I differ with choice to loosen the root ball.

Recent studies and my own careful observation indicate that in most circumstances supposed advantages of spreading roots, even when they appear compacted, is too damaging to same roots for overall benefit to the plant.

Still a great video, may I use it as training aid?

Posted by: Nerdette | September 26, 2010 12:00 PM

Wait, do you even garden in a professor's elbow-padded suit jacket?

Posted by: Ben Goren | September 26, 2010 12:03 PM

First, PZ, I salute you.

I have some grand plans for a garden to plant in my new-to-me home. In the front, around the perimeter, in lieu of a fence, I’ll be planting a brambles of blackberries, raspberries, roses, and the like. And I promised Tamar that, since she wasn’t going to live long enough for some sort of regenerative technique to restore her claws, that I’d use her ashes to fertilize the brambles so she could use the thorns as proxies — and have plenty of butterflies to lust after, as well.

The back is going to be a small orchard. And there will definitely be apples in the orchard. And now I know exactly what I’ll be doing with the Gideon’s Bible I’ve got somewhere. It even occurs to me that I need to plant the apples in the middle of the garden, now….

Cheers,

b&

Posted by: Dave Dell | September 26, 2010 12:07 PM

Rocky -

My grandfather read the bible 6 times as a young lad. He told me that no matter how cold it was in the outhouse he always tried to finish the page before he tore it out and used it.

Posted by: Sastra | September 26, 2010 12:10 PM

Samantha #36 wrote:

We actually discussed why people get so attached to things like holy books in a recent psychology class.

In addition to being "identity markers," I've read that we also have what seems to be an in-born tendency to think that physical objects are connected to or infused with non-physical "essences." We have to both mature out of and reason our way out of this sort of supernatural thinking. It doesn't necessarily come naturally.

That's why the counter to gnu atheism isn't a call for the scholarly study of the neurological, psychological, and anthropological explanations for why religion has such a hold on our species. Gnu atheists have no problem with having a deep and sensitive understanding of what's behind the sense of the sacred. We can get it -- and then say "okay, now try to get over it."

Posted by: Duckbilled Platypus | September 26, 2010 12:10 PM

In which case, you're making a very rash promise. If I were Ken Ham or some other Christian, I would start up a "Send PZ a Koran" contest. How big is your garden?

Back at square 1.

Posted by: Mark Myers | September 26, 2010 12:12 PM

Now you've done it Case Sensitive! If this plant actually beats the odds and PZ boasts any positive comment regarding this plant's health next year, fundies will have grounds to claim miraculous intervention!

Posted by: Ben Goren | September 26, 2010 12:15 PM

I’m also compelled to observe: never mind the ’Net’s infinite copies of these two tomes; they’ve been reproduced in print form not just millions of times but probably hundreds of millions of times, maybe even over a billion times. It’s not like we’re talking about a limited run, people. And there’re plenty more where PZ’s came from.

I’d object to destroying a page from a Gutenberg Bible. That Bible that so many presidents have sworn an oath on, too. I’d get really upset at the destruction of the Dead Sea Scrolls. And I can certainly understand the sentimental value that, say, an elderly man might place on the Bible that his grandmother gave to him when he was a child.

But one of these ultra-mass-produced copies-of-copies-of-copies? Please. Get real.

Cheers,

b&

Posted by: Lynna, OM | September 26, 2010 12:19 PM

Mattir, you will be pleased to know that I write in all my books. And I stick stuff in them until their backs are almost breaking. They're much more useful with the notes and added material.

I keep my dead mother's bible because she wrote in it, not because it's a bible.

Posted by: robiferentz | September 26, 2010 12:24 PM

I do not approve of the wanton destruction of any books. I read and own many books, they're precious to me and I would not want them destroyed. That does not mean I'd start a holy war or kill anyone if they were.

But I approve even less of the constant whining of the religious about respecting their beliefs and their holy fetishes.

At least this is more like recycling anyways.

Posted by: Janice in Toronto | September 26, 2010 12:25 PM

I'm glad you only threw in the printed Bible. The InterWeb© one probably wouldn't lend itself to being buried quite as nicely...

Keep up the great work, we all appreciate it, eh?

Posted by: Samantha | September 26, 2010 12:28 PM

re Sastra @ #51:

We have to both mature out of and reason our way out of this sort of supernatural thinking. It doesn't necessarily come naturally.

That's why the counter to gnu atheism isn't a call for the scholarly study of the neurological, psychological, and anthropological explanations for why religion has such a hold on our species. Gnu atheists have no problem with having a deep and sensitive understanding of what's behind the sense of the sacred. We can get it -- and then say "okay, now try to get over it."

I can definitely agree with that, but the difficulty comes when the religious exhibit a more extreme version of what we ourselves show. Most people I know do have identity markers, although all of those are intensely personal items. The religious who get upset over any bible destroyed are just going one step further and extending their personal association to a general item rather than a specific personal one. Of course, we can draw the line and say that we should aim to only have personal identity markers, but then how to explain the people who feel a deep sense of loss when a home they used to live in or building they frequented is torn down? To us, that seems more understandable than treating all bibles like they are one, but it's a similar phenomenon. For me, it's really hard to tell where reasonable stops and strange starts. I don't have any physical items that are "identity markers". I am, for the most part, self-contained. The only thing I would go back into a burning building for is my living, breathing animals. For me, it seems equally strange to be in tears over the loss of a photo album or the loss of a bible. So I definitely think that it's something we're likely better off without, but I can't say that it's something that I think most people are currently without, regardless of religiosity or lack thereof. The difference seems to mostly be one of scale.

PS: I do see a vast difference between having object that are memory jolters and therefore identity markers and seeing objects as having some non-physical "essence" and can draw a line between them. It's drawing the line on what's somewhat expected and normal and what's over the top in identity markers that I have a hard time doing without a simple "all or nothing".

Posted by: Basil | September 26, 2010 12:30 PM

The books are on the internet. I don't need hard copies.

I should mention that these are books sent to me by believers to convince me of the truth of their nonsense. Send me more, they'll meet similar fates.

I think that's a great end for those books to meet. Though, I'll be keeping my King James Bible for the time being. I've had a number of debates with believers where it has come in handy to have a printed copy around. Sometimes I've been without the wonder of the internets and lovely things like your blog(such a travesty, I know). Plus, there are those incredibly faithful people who will simply deny the internet and will only accept a particular printing of the Bible(in my experience that would be the King James).

I think though, that one day I will plant a whole garden with books of every holy writ. Hmm, I wonder how tomatoes grow in the Book of Mormon? Mmmm, Sacrelicious.

Posted by: Katharine | September 26, 2010 12:32 PM

I think an important distinction must be made between:

-the stupidity of giving undue respect to the blathering idiots of both christianity and islam, which are equally idiotic, and

-recognizing the fact that people who are affiliated with the same stupidity, albeit a more liberal version of it, that the blathering idiots in the Middle East are affiliated with, are the targets of rhetoric that is beginning to sound curiously similar to pre-Holocaust rhetoric about the Jews sometimes.

Two slightly related but very different things.

Also, I see a certain very intriguing message sent by the burial of those two books: that nature and the forces of reality are quite able to overpower anything mere humans attempt to cough up, from the rank stupidity of religion to the elegance of what we produce scientifically.

Posted by: Lee | September 26, 2010 12:39 PM

Great idea. But it left me wondering which book would make better compost.

Posted by: Cosmic Snark | September 26, 2010 12:42 PM

I'll be keeping my King James Bible for the time being. I've had a number of debates with believers where it has come in handy to have a printed copy around.

I keep an all-in-one, multiple-translation app in my iPod for that. The built-in search engine is very helpful.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | September 26, 2010 12:43 PM

I approve of sacrileges but the book thing has always struck me as too far. It's not that we should hold 'special reverence for holy books' but I think they should be treated like all other books, buried on a shelf someplace.

Books are only as good as the ideas held within. If the ideas are worse than useless, so is the book.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | September 26, 2010 12:46 PM

I don't think holy books are particularly nutritious. One can purchase recycled paper cat litter (Yesterday's News), which looks a lot like rabbit food pellets. This morning I was greeted with my rabbits' hungry dance, and discovered that Mr. M had filled their food bowl with their litterbox filler last night. They did not find this particularly satisfying, so perhaps there were not enough Magic Books™ in their litter pellets.

A sacrilegious version of such litter would be amusing, especially if used for carnivorous pets, whose waste is especially foul to the human nose.

Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | September 26, 2010 12:50 PM

geralcorasjo @ 66 wrote...

Despite the fact the passages in those books are pretty anti-intellectual, destroying good books still strikes me as anti-intellectual in itself.

That said, the anti-intellectualism that's striking you is a bit of a knee-jerk reaction that I understand based on the history of book burning and book banning. The important difference here is context, and the context that matters in this situation is that this is a form of protest to the overreaction some people are having to other people destroying books.

We also need to be careful about bestowing a form of sacredness upon books just because they happen to be books. Yes, they are useful and even vital carriers of knowledge that book burnings throughout history have sought to extinguish, but in the end they are still just objects and in this case they are objects with millions of copies each that can afford one person's act of reasoned protest.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 26, 2010 12:53 PM

I've got some bibles and a koran on the shelves somewhere. But I find I read Herodotus and Homer more often.

Posted by: faisons | September 26, 2010 12:59 PM

I've got a Bible and a Qur'an somewhere. I keep them around for reference - mostly to shoot down the inane claims of the religious faithful about their own absurd religions. (Amazing how few Christians know their own damned book, and the bullschizz they'll spew about other people's books. Although, to be fair, the Muslims DO seem to know their own book fairly well, but then, it's shorter.)

But anyway, I do keep them handy for reference, but they have no greater place of honor on my bookshelf than my Harry Potter books... oh wait, Harry Potter is placed far more prominently. I prefer my fiction to be enjoyable to read.

My microbiology and genetics textbooks, however, are front and center.

Posted by: ronsullivan | September 26, 2010 1:02 PM

Oh my. Not only enviable soil and good technique, but a handful of the most engaging, sensual garden writing ever.

Damn, PZ. Is there anything you can't do well?

Posted by: Sam C | September 26, 2010 1:06 PM

Then six British racists got arrested, not for real crimes against their neighbors of a different ethnicity, but, again, for the sin of disrespect for a holy book.

Er, no, they were arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred. That's as different from your misrepresentation as an eagle is from a whale.

Anybody who knows anything about Yurrp will tell you that in European societies, free speech is not accorded the god-like absolutist status that the USA gives it; it is a conditional principle. You might think that's rubbish, but democracy is supposed to allow us to run our societies as we wish, not as approved by Mur'cans. So in the UK and most of Europe, "free speech" is not an automatic defence to behaving like an anti-social shitbag.

In our less murderous and violent societies, we value social harmony much more than the US does, although much less than, say, China. Most freedoms are conditional, our constitutions were not handed down by sainted founders. Or is it a sin that our societies have different priorities to yours?

But no doubt your fawning minions slobbering at your every perversion of each news report will lap up this nonsense. The case for rejecting religious belief and culture is strong enough that you don't need to repeatedly bend the truth to breaking point.

You reject a book of lies. Good. I reject your lies.

Posted by: quisquose | September 26, 2010 1:08 PM

PZ has not destroyed these 'orrible books, he has merely stored them rather poorly.

It's god, or god's creatures, that's destroying them.

:)

Posted by: A. Noyd | September 26, 2010 1:10 PM

Greyhamster Greylander (#76)

And I do think you bear responsibility for the predictable misinterpretation of this video

Look who still thinks that PZ is responsible for the poor reading comprehension of religious idiots.  He made his intentions plenty clear. If anyone wants to interpret it another way or refuses to look up the context before judging the video, that is on them.

Posted by: ithonicfury | September 26, 2010 1:12 PM

I'm sure the Library of Congress or some museum has a bible preserved for all time.

To quote Top Gear:

Its not like you need to preserve a breeding pair. You only need one, as a warning from history.

Posted by: jeffery.g.davis | September 26, 2010 1:15 PM

Am I the only one half expecting that plant to shrivel up and die?

Posted by: chanson.exmormon | September 26, 2010 1:20 PM

Lovely, and very fitting.

One question: When watering the newly planted flowers, that was no watering can, right? I did a quick search for "piss," "pee," and "urine," but there are only oblique references...

Posted by: skeptifem | September 26, 2010 1:27 PM

I can see that these books have significance to other people without seeing it myself. I can see that this group of people, who have been oppressed in the extreme post 911, probably shouldn't have more shit heaped onto them by the dominant culture. i give a shit about not worsening the condition of people who are oppressed by the government and the status quo, even if I disagree with them about how important a book is. How silly it is to believe a book is holy is about the last thing on my list- ending shit like government surveillance, intimidation, and harassment are a bit more important.

Its like when white people freaked out over the black people looting after katrina- it wasn't that it angered me that someone would dare speak out against theft, it was that they prioritized those thefts by african americans from white business owners as pertinent when the the opposite thing had happened a thousand times on a grander scale systematically, and no one gave a shit.

Of course I don't think legal consequences should be heaped on koran burners, but I do think they are total assholes. Why don't they go to a reservation and put on ritual gear and mock native americans while they are at it? I mean, religion is so dumb that they deserve it for believing in it, right? Jesus. Get your fucking priorities straight.

Posted by: Manny Calavera | September 26, 2010 1:33 PM

It's depressingly funny how we've got people willing to slaughter, imprison and threaten each other over the destruction of single copies of books that exist by the millions. We're such silly apes.

Of course if that book is an original Amazing Spider-man #122 or my own hardback copy of the complete Watchmen I could understand, heads would have to roll but the Koran, it doesn't even have pictures.

Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM, CR | September 26, 2010 1:38 PM

As we bury these books full of hatred
We notice that nobody mourns
And we wonder, though roses were planted,
Might it only grow briars and thorns?

But no--we'll see beautiful blossoms
And the reason (it seem so, to me)
Is, the carbon long bound to this folly
Is delighted, at last, to be free

And the earth could be covered with flowers
And the world could be given a chance
If we hammer our swords into plowshares
And recycle our myths into plants

http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2010/09/holy-compost.html

Posted by: Kawa | September 26, 2010 1:42 PM

@thirstypretzel, #104: I wonder how many cheezburgers I could get for selling my old children's bible that I got in school.

Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger | September 26, 2010 1:43 PM

I have to admit, I'm conflicted.

I strongly opposed Terry Jones' "burn a qur'an day", while I don't particularly oppose PZ's gesture. And I'm not entirely certain why. I genuinely hope it's not a case of "it's okay if you're an atheist".

Here's how I rationalize it, though: Terry Jones was going to burn qur'ans as a gesture of hatred. PZ disposes of qur'ans (and bibles) as a gesture of indifference.

Thoughts?

Posted by: nitwit.nastik | September 26, 2010 1:46 PM

Bravo PZ for dumping those garbage where they belongs. Although I feel sorry for the flowers !! I hope you can add the Vedas or the Gita to that list in the future.

Btw, I wonder why burning the Koran enrages Muslims, when in fact they kill,burn and eat hundreds of cows everyday - something considered sacred by a billion hindus.

Talk about being peeved over silly stuff.

Posted by: rivalyn-crimson | September 26, 2010 1:51 PM

#95: Given that the plant has been planted in soil now enriched by eight thousand years (according to some) of bullshit, I expect that in a year or two we'll be able to climb it like a tree.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | September 26, 2010 1:57 PM

skeptifem:

I can see that this group of people, who have been oppressed in the extreme post 911, probably shouldn't have more shit heaped onto them by the dominant culture.

So, you're saying that we shouldn't be mocking Islam, because why exactly?

Oh, right, because no one can criticize women or minorities because it's inherently misogynistic/racist, right?

Its like when white people freaked out over the black people looting after katrina- it wasn't that it angered me that someone would dare speak out against theft, it was that they prioritized those thefts by african americans from white business owners as pertinent when the the opposite thing had happened a thousand times on a grander scale systematically, and no one gave a shit.

Okay, I really hate this fucking argument. Can you really consider what happened "looting" when the businesses have been abandoned and "looting" was the only option to keep from starving to death?

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | September 26, 2010 1:58 PM

Awesome recognition of the racism of the jackasses who you claim were only guilty of 'insensitivity'.

But at least you found an eco-friendly way to get rid of them. No less, from a biologist, I suppose.

And thank you, Skeptifem, for writing that out more calmly then I would.

Posted by: heatherly | September 26, 2010 2:01 PM

Cuttlefish: That was absolutely lovely.

PZ, I hope your flowers grow well. :)

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | September 26, 2010 2:17 PM

You're real tough when it comes to Muslims, but I'd like to see you make fun of the Catholic Church this way, big guy!

Posted by: grassroot | September 26, 2010 2:25 PM

Do you always wear a tweed jacket when you work in your garden?

I guess that's what you meant by "greater respect than they deserve"...

Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline. | September 26, 2010 2:28 PM

And I do think you bear responsibility for the predictable misinterpretation of this video (not responsibility for any crimes committed as a result of that misinterpretation, but for the misinterpretation itself -- even if the misinterpretation was the intended interpretation, it does not justify any violent or destructive response).

The accomodationists usually bray about how religion, itself, cannot be held responsible for the acts of those who (mis?)interpret the holy scriptures.

So if PeeZed is responsible for the thoughts of the viewers of this video, I guess that imams everywhere, not to mention the Koran and Muhammed, himself, pbuh, are responsible of all the misogyny and hate harboured by so many Muslims.

I can live with that.

Posted by: beckstei | September 26, 2010 2:41 PM

I have to say I'm jealous of the dark loamy dirt you have. Mine's all clay. Difficult to dig, difficult to grow things in, but great for making pots.

As to the books you buried, I would have just thrown them on the compost pile. Digging a hole is too much work.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | September 26, 2010 2:48 PM

Rutee:

I think, to be clear that you're not unconditionally against them, you just hate /all/ religion.

I'm not exactly sure where you get this out of her post. Skeptifem said not to heap any more shit onto Muslims and that's pretty much it. (Unless I missed something, which is always a possibility.)

To me, it seems like she's gone off on a tangent. Yes, Muslims (especially in the US) have to deal with overt racism all the time, I get that. But, if we're going to reject/mock one religion, we should be mocking them all. They're all dangerous, no matter who is practicing them.

PS:

Have any of you talked to a muslim about what it was like to be here after 9/11?

Why yes, yes I have. Mr ODS's best friend (and his best man at our wedding) is a practicing Muslim. Shit has gotten so bad that he and his wife will not fly anywhere, because they're guaranteed to be harassed by TSA agents/other commuters/etc. It doesn't matter that they were both born in the States, are highly educated, and are productive members of society.

Which has nothing to do with burying the koran. It is a symbolic gesture of rejection of religion and should be viewed as such.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | September 26, 2010 2:49 PM

The accomodationists usually bray about how religion, itself, cannot be held responsible for the acts of those who (mis?)interpret the holy scriptures.

So if PeeZed is responsible for the thoughts of the viewers of this video, I guess that imams everywhere, not to mention the Koran and Muhammed, himself, pbuh, are responsible of all the misogyny and hate harboured by so many Muslims.

That'd mean an individual imam is responsible for the misinterpretations their sermons give. Ditto priests.

Posted by: Basil | September 26, 2010 3:04 PM

I keep an all-in-one, multiple-translation app in my iPod for that. The built-in search engine is very helpful.

Deprogrammed, that's pretty awesome. I often times find myself trying to ctrl+f when I need to find something in a book(damned paper and its lack of search algorithms). I really should get a Tablet PC and put a collection of holy books on it. It would make my debunking and refuting far more efficient.

Anybody who knows anything about Yurrp will tell you that in European societies, free speech is not accorded the god-like absolutist status that the USA gives it; it is a conditional principle.

SamC, it's not really free speech if it's conditional, now is it? That sounds a bit more like censorship than a conditional principle. But I forget, if you call it something else, then obviously it isn't censorship!

In our less murderous and violent societies, we value social harmony much more than the US does, although much less than, say, China. Most freedoms are conditional, our constitutions were not handed down by sainted founders. Or is it a sin that our societies have different priorities to yours?

Social harmony? You mean "shut the fuck up, and don't rock the boat"? The founders of the United States believed that people should have the right to speak as they saw fit, even if it was unpopular. When you make freedom a conditional thing, it's no longer freedom. It can be curtailed whenever someone sees fit. As Thomas Jefferson once said "Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost". Once you begin limiting a freedom, you destroy it. If you can hack out words from a person's vocabulary, eventually they won't have any left with which to protest and they will be mute.

Even an Anti-social "shitbag" as you put it, deserves a voice. Regardless of what nonsense they may choose to spew. In the end they are just words. If you can't learn to deal with words, with simple hot air, then you have a serious problem. Arresting someone for something they say is a mark of a seriously ill society.

But no doubt your fawning minions slobbering at your every perversion of each news report will lap up this nonsense. The case for rejecting religious belief and culture is strong enough that you don't need to repeatedly bend the truth to breaking point.

You reject a book of lies. Good. I reject your lies.

Ohh noes, PZ posted in his personal blog, some of his views and some people happen to agree with them! Whatever shall we do! But yes, we're all fawning Minions. I mean, why not, he has that stylish jacket and all.

This all makes me want to build a castle out of bibles. Anyone have a few million spare copies and a ton of hot glue? We could team up and make it a weekend project! It would be an impenetrable fortress! No one would dare harm the holy books. Bwahahahaha!

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/O.jullMj0I2VvJaxMMVeNKSfOPf73voLSxJAe9PdlOWwi8Y-#258ec | September 26, 2010 3:18 PM

just what does this mean?
"And I do think you bear responsibility for the predictable misinterpretation of this video (not responsibility for any crimes committed as a result of that misinterpretation, but for the misinterpretation itself -- even if the misinterpretation was the intended interpretation, "

does that apply to everyone or just PZ?
just how is one to prevent what one "says " from being misinterpreted? I can to the best of my ability only think my own thoughts though I have tried to think others thoughts for them but I have utterly failed. Do you have any none "magical" suggestion as to how to predetermine how "someone" else will interpret what I say correctly.

uncle frogy

Posted by: DiscoveredJoys | September 26, 2010 3:24 PM

My local hospice charity takes all my old books. The ones it can sell funds its good works. The ones it can't sell, or that are too damaged, are sold by the ton to recycling firms.

Works for me.

Posted by: ricardo.saenz | September 26, 2010 3:30 PM

Are they printed on acid-free paper?

Posted by: pcarini | September 26, 2010 3:33 PM

Fucking hell, Cuttle @ #105, that was gorgeous!

Posted by: kennykjc24 | September 26, 2010 3:42 PM

Well said PZ and well done. This walking on eggshells on trying not to offend the whining babies of religion is really undeserved and all of us should stand up to these silly blashphemey bullies.

Posted by: Drewbacca | September 26, 2010 3:52 PM

My first thought was "Wow, that soil looks really fertile!"

Posted by: Randomfactor | September 26, 2010 4:09 PM

During the recent nonsense in Florida it occurred to me that the United States ought to offer a special tax break--or several--to any churches willing to burn a Bible in public. Mosques and synagogues too, heck, even Scientology Celebrity Centers would qualify.

But it must be a Bible. Not a Koran, nor a copy of Dianetics.

There's scientific proof that the Bible is associated with child molestation in a way that other "holy books" are not. It's on the Internets somewhere. Society benefits, you understand.

This would be in no way discriminatory against Christian churches since the same law would apply equally to people who think the Bible is holy writ and to those who think it's silly or harmful nonsense--so long as they choose to burn a Bible.

And there must be no other way of obtaining the tax breaks and special status. Churches which declined to participate in the Bible-burning would be considered as second-class affiliations, at best. They'd be turned away from hospital emergency rooms in times of spiritual crisis, and locked out of legal rights generally. Sure, you might have certain churches recognized in some other "equivalent" fashion, but it wouldn't be "real" in some fashion nearly everyone understood but no one could explain.

Surely *ONE* of the churchgoers, in some Christian church somewhere, would begin to see something familiar about the situation...

Posted by: Rogut | September 26, 2010 4:13 PM

Nice one PZ. That was the best post I've read from you since the denoument of Crackergate (not that other posts aren't great, but this resonated more for me, as did Crackergate). What is it about these "acts of non-desecration" that bring out the best in your obvious writing skills ?

As to the comments that the video could be taken out of context and misinterpreted, couldn't that be got around by putting a commentary over it - you've got the words already - the post says it all - you just need to record it as audio and put it on the video. Then, anyone who chose to be offended would be doing so wilfully and not through some missing of the point !

Rog

Posted by: Stephen Wells | September 26, 2010 4:29 PM

@150: have I misunderstood you, or are you saying that the Iliad and Odyssey are bad works of art because their plots are morally reprehensible? I don't think that follows; art is not required to be about good things, to end happily, or to have big stickers on it saying "This bad thing is bad".

Posted by: kev_s | September 26, 2010 4:32 PM

That wouldn't be a chrysanthemum would it? The plant long associated with death and funerals? How appropriate.

Posted by: charley | September 26, 2010 4:39 PM

A few years ago I ran across the Bible I was solemnly presented with in front of church as a 2nd grader. My name was embossed in gold on the cover. Their effort to instill reverence for this book in my young mind had worked; I kept it for 40 years. Having recently dumped religion, though, this Bible just seemed to embody of the decades of deceit that were to come after I got it.

All I know is that it felt pretty good to tear off piece after piece and watch my little bonfire turn them to ashes.

Posted by: Ichthyic | September 26, 2010 4:46 PM

The ink runs as nematodes writhe over the surfaces, etching the words with slime and replacing the follies of dead men with the wisdom of worms.

perfect.

Must have book now.

hurry plz.

Posted by: natural cynic | September 26, 2010 4:53 PM

PZ, you may be in luck. There may be no fatwa against you since you buried an English translation of the Qur'an. Only the the original Arabic is considered really sacred. All translations can't be the true words of Allah because what's sacred could only be in the language that Gabriel caused Muhammad to hallucinate in.

And thanks for reminding me about The Eye of Argon. I had completely forgotten this classic.

Posted by: Ichthyic | September 26, 2010 4:54 PM

I can see that this group of people, who have been oppressed in the extreme post 911, probably shouldn't have more shit heaped onto them by the dominant culture.

good thing it was only fertile soil being heaped onto books then, right?

fuck, you're so far off lately it's worrying.

Posted by: Anri | September 26, 2010 5:02 PM

I do worry, however, how this video can go viral and be used as propaganda. Large masses of Muslim people could see it will little or no context, and see it as simply an example of western contempt for the Islamic world in general -- a purely secular issue, with plenty of non-religious motivation behind it. Anyone committing violence or other crime as a result of any anger of this video is responsible for their own actions.

I'm sorry, but how can anyone's contempt for a religious group be a purely secular issue?

I seriously question whether making and publishing this video makes the world a better place, in the short or long term.

It demonstrates that there are people out there more interested in pretty plants than ancient books of violence and subservience. That's a wonderful message, and the more people that spread that message, the better.

And I do think you bear responsibility for the predictable misinterpretation of this video (not responsibility for any crimes committed as a result of that misinterpretation, but for the misinterpretation itself -- even if the misinterpretation was the intended interpretation, it does not justify any violent or destructive response).

So, what do you suggest be done about this?
Really, what form would you have this 'responsibility' take? Perhaps some sort of forum, accessible to the public at large, in which PZ makes his views about religion in general known?
Should PZ issue a statement along the lines of: "I take full responsibility for anyone completely misinterpreting my message with this video?" Doesn't that sound a bit odd to you?

Posted by: Ichthyic | September 26, 2010 5:07 PM

In the UK

remember your qualification here, David.

it's important.

Posted by: seemeisie | September 26, 2010 5:12 PM

I'm envious of your fantastic soil.

Posted by: Ichthyic | September 26, 2010 5:23 PM

Ichthyic - Sorry for the derail, but I've been waiting for you to show up. There's email for you at your crackergate.com address.

I'll check it today.

Posted by: KG | September 26, 2010 5:36 PM

The founders of the United States believed that people should have the right to speak as they saw fit, even if it was unpopular. When you make freedom a conditional thing, it's no longer freedom. It can be curtailed whenever someone sees fit. As Thomas Jefferson once said "Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost" - Basil

That's Thomas Jefferson the slaveowner, hypocrite and rapist. Basil, believe it or not, to non-Americans the fact that the US's founders thought something does not, in itself, establish that they were right. Freedom of expression, of course, is not unconditional in the USA any more than it is elsewhere: threats of violence, and publishing "national security" secrets, for example, are criminal acts.

Posted by: Insightful Ape | September 26, 2010 5:36 PM

I am sorry, David, but I don't
think those of us who have problems with Islam should accept self-censorship on the grounds that our opnions might be misrepresented as racist.
PS I happen to be from the middle east.

Posted by: wanderinweeta | September 26, 2010 5:45 PM

Beautiful! Almost convinced me to ditch my old Bible!

I've been destroying other offensive religious books by soaking them (so they can't be rescued) and dumping them in the paper recycling box.

I did bury Dad's expensive creationist books. I didn't do them the honour of planting flowers on them, either; planted them where nobody will go for another 20 years or so, and abandoned them to their fate.

I'll keep my Bible for now; it's filling up beautifully with marginal notes: e.g., "See (reference to contradicting passage)" or "X didn't have a map, obviously."

Posted by: SC OM | September 26, 2010 5:52 PM

In the end they are just words.

Like on Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines.

Posted by: DLC | September 26, 2010 5:56 PM

Good riddance.
With any luck that plant will flower nicely and reduce those two works of ignorance to a useful mulch.

Posted by: Timberwoof | September 26, 2010 6:02 PM

PZ, come to Further Confusion in San Jose in January. We'd love to hear you talk about anything having to do with tetrapod biology. And I'll save a space for you at the midnight reading of The Eye of Argon.

The rules are simple: Players sit in a circle facing inward. The host provides a printed copy of the manuscript, preferably with all the original typographical peculiarities, and the players take turns reading it aloud. When you laugh, you sit and let the next person take his turn. (No, don't read like a robot or blaze through the words.) Meanwhile, those so inclined act out what the text describes.

It's fun for all and we treat the work with all the reverence it deserves.

Posted by: florent.leguern | September 26, 2010 6:33 PM

I do vividly agree with all what's been shown (and the video with nice indeed : no dull music or lame animations). BUT, but... that poor plant ! I hope you don't water all your plants like that : never aim at the flower or leaves, always the base of the plant =) Suits them better, and doesn't harm the fragile parts.

*hum*

Posted by: jaymarkowitz | September 26, 2010 6:34 PM

I just want to offer my support to PZ on this thread and issue.

And I use my real name.

Posted by: SC OM | September 26, 2010 7:18 PM

many Muslims in the US aren't immigrants at all,

About a third of US Muslims (and I'm guessing a very large percentage of non-immigrant Muslims) are black USians.

Posted by: Juicyheart | September 26, 2010 7:29 PM

"I should mention that these are books sent to me by believers to convince me of the truth of their nonsense. Send me more, they'll meet similar fates."

Why don't you just autograph them and send them back or onto auctions for secular/aethist causes?

Posted by: MadScientist | September 26, 2010 7:47 PM

@Rocky#1: that's a bad idea; only sandpaper could be worse.

Now if these books were dug up in a year's time and found to be in pristine condition then I would consider the possibility of the existence of a deity - after a thorough investigation and consideration of other possibilities of course. There's also a good chance that there will still not be enough evidence of a deity and I would simply have to defer judgement.

Posted by: SC OM | September 26, 2010 7:57 PM

I thought most Mexicans were Catholic?

I think that was the point (substitute "and" for "but").

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | September 26, 2010 8:02 PM

I thought most Mexicans were Catholic?

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/gsj52egdwdnCB87W1Qfp4r_vpFqe#21d97 | September 26, 2010 8:14 PM

"...but these horrors belong in libraries and museums, they should be taught as vile mistakes in our schools, but we should not be expected to honor them."

*applause*

Posted by: Ichthyic | September 26, 2010 8:23 PM

so some of the recent immigrants have converted to the Episcopalian or fundamentalist churches, which have prospered in our area....

interesting. I wonder what kind of overall demographic effect that has/will have.

Posted by: Basil | September 26, 2010 8:38 PM

That's Thomas Jefferson the slaveowner, hypocrite and rapist. Basil, believe it or not, to non-Americans the fact that the US's founders thought something does not, in itself, establish that they were right. Freedom of expression, of course, is not unconditional in the USA any more than it is elsewhere: threats of violence, and publishing "national security" secrets, for example, are criminal acts.

KG, and just because he owned slaves, doesn't mean that the ideas that he or the others founders espoused were wrong. Most of the people in that era also owned slaves. That doesn't make it right, but it doesn't automatically invalidate any notion that they had. A lot of bad or idiotic things were done or believed throughout history.

Besides, the ideas of the Founders are not ones that they dreamt up on their own. They were largely influenced by others, like John Locke. Who said similar things, like "The end of Law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge Freedom".

The things I said regarding censorship and freedom to speak apply just as much to America as it stands today, as it does to any other place on the planet. Free speech zones are as much an abomination as any other form of censorship. The point I was trying to make is that liberty and freedom lose their meaning if you curtail them. When you lose the ability to say a word or speak in a certain way, you no longer have freedom.

Don't mistake my agreement with the ideas of mean like Paine, Franklin, Jefferson, Washington, and others as a rabid jingoism. I may agree with ideas, but I follow no one(certainly not blindly).

Like on Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines.

Yes, but how many of those racist words of propaganda actually killed people? It takes people to kill people. You need existing hatreds and a framework to push those kinds of things to a genocide. The antisemitic propaganda that Hitler used in WWII didn't originate with him. The antisemitism existed long before he opened his mouth. If it didn't exist though, he wouldn't have been able to murder millions. Just broadcasting these things isn't going to make it happen. The words are meaningless without people who already hold such damaging beliefs.

The root problem of this isn't the morpheme, but rather a person's ignorance and existing hate. It can only be dealt with by education and understanding, not be legislating what people can or cannot say. Who is to decide what is or isn't decent to say? Do you trust people to use that power decently, without abuse? What's next after legislating what people are allowed to speak; do we also legislate what they can think?

But yeah, don't mind me. Let's just lock up whoever doesn't agree with out point of view, that way there's no arguments. It's a real time saver. =P

Posted by: RichVR | September 26, 2010 8:43 PM

A fitting end for dead ideas. Bravo!

Posted by: dsichel | September 26, 2010 8:51 PM

At least you didn't burn 'em. Paper's a carbon sink.

On the other hand, though, how biodegradable is their ink?

Posted by: masturbating monkey | September 26, 2010 9:27 PM

Funny, no one gave two shits when I tossed my Bible, Koran, and Book of Mormon in the trash with my stale poo I was to lazy to fling. Should of got a camera or called CNN.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | September 26, 2010 9:45 PM

Those suggesting various digital desecrations--as in the deleting of copies of files--got me to thinking this sort of thing could even be offered online...

I may have to develop this. You click a few buttons--pick the pile o' claptrap you wish deleted. Thing creates a copy, deletes it for you, sends you a cheery confirmation message...

Other options: instead of merely deleting, overwrites with various heretical/racy texts you select...

(/Or hey... even The Eye of Argon)

Posted by: Anansi | September 26, 2010 10:00 PM

I once downloaded an audio version of the Koran then deleted it after I listened to it. Does deleting an electronic copy raise to the same level of sacrilege that burning a paper copy does? If not, why not?

BTW, Listening to the Koran being read makes frequently repeated phrases really stand out. The most repeated phrase I heard: "God will punish" "God will punish" "God will punish" "God will punish" "God will punish" "God will punish" "God will punish".

It lead me to believe you must be a masochist if you want to be a Moslem.

Posted by: Anansi | September 26, 2010 10:25 PM

@Basil #201

Most of the people in that era also owned slaves.

Totally untrue. First of all, a slave cost the equivalent that a new car does today, not to mention the daily upkeep of a slave cost more than gas and insurance does, along with the fact that there were no finance plans available meant that only the wealthy could afford slaves.

In addition, you are obviously not counting the slaves themselves as "people".

Posted by: Deepsix | September 26, 2010 10:47 PM

PZ, what were the pages that were folded and placed inside the Koran? The white pages that were sticking out of the top of the book.

Posted by: nomuse | September 26, 2010 11:25 PM

Ah, a church for the Ebon God and his unknowing prophet, Grignr. This bears further thought!

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlARhxz_EZad2_PPNvQmVelK-U8LVLTYeA | September 27, 2010 12:05 AM

Right now, the pages swell with moisture, the fibers separate and the chapters turn into pulpy masses. Bacteria bloom and their colonies expand; fungi flourish and their hyphae infiltrate and convert cellulose into spores. The ink runs as nematodes writhe over the surfaces, etching the words with slime and replacing the follies of dead men with the wisdom of worms. The roots of flowers and grasses will fumble downwards to embrace the decaying leaves, and the roots of trees will impale the volumes laterally.

Why is this making me feel hungry??

Posted by: John | September 27, 2010 12:48 AM

PZ does his gardening with a suit jacket on?

Posted by: pcarini | September 27, 2010 12:56 AM

Nice catch there, ronsullivan @ 216 ;)

Posted by: Simulation of Sapience | September 27, 2010 1:33 AM

If a Tree of Knowledge/Wisdom/Forbidden Fruit or a Burning Bush sprout from that spot (or perhaps a Giving Tree. I'll even settle for a Fatwa fungus!),I'll head back to church this instant! Sure, it would likely be to question the wisdom of a deity who chooses to show itself in such a way for such a reason, but there it stands.

Of course, the books will be broken down and absorbed through the roots of that plant like any other organic matter would be. Maybe that's a bit boring compared to the above fanciful scenario, but those are the facts of life(apparently not cancelled, after all,and very much underrated).At least those plants which composed those texts are free from bearing the burden of human folly now.

I probably would have used the books to make papercraft mock-ups of one of the prophets cavorting with one of the many varieties of undesirables mentioned therein or used them as bricks in a fortress of foolhardiness, hiding behind books full of indefensible ideas literally...just for fun. Can't quite figure out how to profit from it yet.

Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot | September 27, 2010 2:31 AM

Two things from this entry:
1/ Seems to me the world really could do with a 'Bury your Dogma Day'. Cuttlefish's beautiful prose will nicely complement the day's activities. It'd be beautiful to see

2/ How have I gone this long with never having read, or even heard of, the grindingly effluverent prose of the magisterial epic "The Eye of Argon"??!?? Inconceptual!

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | September 27, 2010 3:15 AM

Sam C, in response to we prefer a more orderly society, from another fellow UKian and to quote Benjamin Franklin

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Just because you don't value such freedom and our various governments have over the years, especially since the restart of the NI 'troubles' in the sixties and even more so after September 11, many of the liberties we do have, doesn't mean the rest of us have to agree with you. While the charges, if any do arise, will be those you quoted, and yes they probably are racist assholes, it is still just a means to silence dissent under the guise of social harmony and fear. But if you only allow expression that you agree with, then you are no better than the supporter of any fascist or theocratic state.

Posted by: unaudio | September 27, 2010 3:19 AM

Is your wife cool with this? I mean it's great that you do this but still. Death threats are not a pleasant thing even if you can mentally ignore them.

Posted by: KG | September 27, 2010 5:54 AM

Most of the people in that era also owned slaves. - Basil@201

Just wanted to highlight that amazing display of bone-headed ignorance.

The point I was trying to make is that liberty and freedom lose their meaning if you curtail them. When you lose the ability to say a word or speak in a certain way, you no longer have freedom. - Basil

What a load of stupid crap. Both the UK and USA do have restrictions on freedom of speech. Does that mean we are no freer than the citizens of North Korea?

Yes, but how many of those racist words of propaganda actually killed people? It takes people to kill people. You need existing hatreds and a framework to push those kinds of things to a genocide. The antisemitic propaganda that Hitler used in WWII didn't originate with him. The antisemitism existed long before he opened his mouth. If it didn't exist though, he wouldn't have been able to murder millions. Just broadcasting these things isn't going to make it happen. The words are meaningless without people who already hold such damaging beliefs. - Basil

You are quite obviously completely ignorant of the history of Nazi Germany, and of social psychology, as well as the history of slavery. Sure, there was antisemitism before Hitler, but the genocide was the culmination of a decade-long campaign of public hate speech by Hitler and his cronies. How do you think people acquire antisemitism in the first place, Basil? It's from other people, Basil, who tell them there's a Jewish conspiracy. If this is accusation is made in public, it reaches many more people, and has much greater apparent authority - and will tip some from feelings of hatred, to actual violence. That's true even if those spewing it are not the government: in the UK today, increases in racist violence routinely accompany and follow demonstrations by the BNP and EDL. Whether suppression of public hate speech is ever the right response is debatable, but it is either extremely stupid, or dishonest, to claim that such speech does not cause violence.

Posted by: Bob Russell | September 27, 2010 7:13 AM

Such a waste of two "good books." They make great doorstops and the pages are soft, strong and thoroughly absorbent and can be used when caught short on a hike or camping trip.

Posted by: drumprof | September 27, 2010 8:18 AM

Yes....as per comment #1...I understand the Koran is now available in two ply...

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnAksxpLtoqRcfNPEaqFoMiFQmg8j2FcU8 | September 27, 2010 8:58 AM

But what if yur WRONG?

;}

Posted by: arnemagne | September 27, 2010 10:23 AM

Watch out! What if the plant turns into a biblebush or a quaranatree? I guess the only way to get rid of such shrubbery is hellfire =)

Posted by: eddyh | September 27, 2010 11:14 AM

Thank you PZ. This video brought a smile to my face. It's wonderful how rational behavior has a way of doing that.

Posted by: Quincy Adams Wagstaff | September 27, 2010 12:29 PM

Well done PZ. You'll be pleased to hear that your portion in the world to come has just increased exponentially, because of your meritorious action of holy book burial.

Posted by: nelc | September 27, 2010 1:00 PM

Gordon @234: The English Defence League are racists — or ethnicists if you prefer, though I surmise that they would heartily agree that they dislike all 'races' except for the English 'race' — and their book-burning has to be seen in that context. It was not a socially neutral act, but an act specifically intended to provoke violence.

The job of the police is to preserve the peace. Bigots trying to provoke violence is a breach of the peace. The arrest has got nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with the police doing their job, the job we expect them to do when we are the ones being threatened and intimidated. ("We" in the previous sentence is meta-syntactic; it refers to whatever group you feel you belong to, because the protection of the law is meant to extend to everybody, regardless of race, creed, or ethnicity, or their belonging to a group you feel has been getting more favour from the PC crowd than your own.)

Posted by: KG | September 27, 2010 1:33 PM

out of interest, what race is islam? Only I've personally seen muslims of at least 4 "races" including White-British. - Gordon

Racists and fascists have been using "opposition to Islam" as a cover for several years now - it allows them to hate on many of their favourite targets while pretending it's nothing to do with race - oh, I see you've done exactly the same. I wonder why.

Posted by: Aaron Baker | September 27, 2010 3:02 PM

re #247:

In the US, "inciting racial hatred" is pretty near completely protected by the First Amendment. In Great Britain it enjoys no such protection.

Having been a First Amendment near-absolutist for years, I'm now a bit conflicted about these sorts of cases. Language that bestializes and demonizes other human beings has played a role not just in oppression, but mass murder (e.g. the Hutu radio broadcasters in Rwanda with their talk of "cockroaches"). It's not prima facie obvious to me these days that such speech should be protected.

But here British law is being enforced in a way much more problematic than if it had been applied to an explicit incitement to kill Muslims. For one thing (and there's been a comparable development in the interpretation of speech under the First Amendment), "incitement" is interpreted to cover expressive activity other than simply speaking--which means the range of what can be banned is potentially limitless.

Also, it's entirely conceivable (especially to people here) that a person could burn a Qur'an with no intention of inciting racial hatred. Does the Qur'an burner (or burier) who simply wants to advertise hostility to religion have to worry about the incitement law? I think the answer would have to be yes. Governments just cannot be trusted to apply coercive laws in any way but overbroadly and hamfistedly.

(Incidentally, I'm not defending burning or otherwise vandalizing Qur'ans; I find burning or vandalizing books to be obnoxious--but obnoxiousness alone is never enough to warrant criminal punishment.)

Posted by: Aaron Baker | September 27, 2010 5:18 PM

I doubt Nietzsche, the son of a Lutheran minister, was ignorant about the Bible.

As to what finding some grandeur in the Old Testament conveys about me, or Nietzsche, or anybody else who's felt the same way--maybe you can explain that in more detail.

Posted by: Leon | September 27, 2010 7:23 PM

Aaron, I agree; I think Ichthyic spoke (wrote?) rashly there. Certainly there are good lessons in both Testaments; I think almost all of us would agree on that. The immediate problem, of course, is that those are mixed in with an equal or greater assortment of bad lessons--and unbelievers seem the only ones willing to point that out to the world.

Posted by: Aaron Baker | September 27, 2010 10:58 PM

Yes, there's plenty in both Testaments that's odious. The mass murders in Joshua and other books of the OT are probably its nastiest feature for me; but there's also Job, and the Psalms, and Saul dying at Gilboa, and Joseph and his brothers (probably one of the greatest novellas ever written)--and Ecclesiastes (wonderfully and accurately unsanguine about the world: "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in She'ol, where you are going"), and on
and on. You don't have to believe in Yahweh to be moved by some of this stuff.

I sincerely hope that Ichthyic doesn't really hate the whole thing.

Posted by: Ichthyic | September 28, 2010 4:09 AM

Certainly there are good lessons in both Testaments;

I can cherry pick any garbage can for *something* worthwhile.

It doesn't mean I think a garbage can is the best place to look for food.

Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief | September 28, 2010 1:51 PM

Ichthyic:

That's an interesting metaphor. Whatever you, I, or the authors of the bible want, we, or they, will probably find a bit of it there, along with a lot we wish to uproot.

There's at least one "the good bits of the bible" web page out there: ethical statements and advice the author agrees with, from a progressive viewpoint that many of us would share. (And a lot of these are things that less progressive people would also accept: his list includes "thou shalt not kill.") I don't recall whether he's including "good poetry, even if you disagree with the message" (which might well apply to some of the psalms) in "the good stuff."

Posted by: Ichthyic | September 29, 2010 3:23 AM

So, unless I'm prepared to analogize a millenium's worth of myth, poetry, history, moral exhortation, and philosophical reflection to a garbage can, I'm . . . what? A crypto-Christian?

or an erector of strawmen.

your choice.

Posted by: Ichthyic | September 29, 2010 3:32 AM

nd a lot of these are things that less progressive people would also accept: his list includes "thou shalt not kill."

the problem is, people tend to ascribe to this collection of stories unique lessons.

they aren't.

all moral lessons contained therein were passed down oral for generations in many cultures before being co-opted and cobbled together in manuscript form.

there is nothing original in there other than trivia.

I could perform a similar exercise with the surviving corpus of ancient Greek literature

exactly.

but... you don't get what that means really, do you?