qoran burning the sequel

[DaGaffer]

Speaking of religious intolerance (in a good way), I see France has banned the Burkha/Niqab from today. And as usual the Guardian gets it completely wrong (and in this case the writer has been given a thorough reaming in the comments section).

 

[Scouse]

ok you can't burn the book and you can't draw mohammed, based entirely on the not very disguised threat of violent response, so what next?
the wholsale appeasment of a cult who threaten violence right up to mass genocide
isn't a good long term strategy.

This, and;

I can't see how there can be a law against this. I can burn my own property if I want as long as I do it safely. I can also insult anyone or anything I want as long as it isn't libelous. That is the mark of a civilised society. Doesn't make me a particularly civilised person if I choose to exercise those rights but noone's beliefs should hold special place under the law.

This.

Also:

you can burn it if you want, showing other people your doing it/ YouTubeing it = incitement

And making that illegal = mind control.


People have to be free to be dicks.

 

[Wij]

No its not and you know it. It should be, but living in the real world, especially in the light of recent events, burning a Koran only really has one message, especially when the person doing the burning is a BNP member. Any lawyer with an iota of skill could make that charge stick.

I disagree. The act itself only has the message "I don't like your religion". Any violence that ensues is the responsibility of the person(s) CHOOSING to take offence and perpetrate violence.

 

[Chronictank]

Never stopped the bible being burnt in the middle east.

there's no law against it there

And making that illegal = mind control.


People have to be free to be dicks.

So long as they only do it in the way you approve of right?
Just look one post above yours

 

[old.Tohtori]

I disagree. The act itself only has the message "I don't like your religion". Any violence that ensues is the responsibility of the person(s) CHOOSING to take offence and perpetrate violence.

Quite true, but if we're being "civilized" compared to the "savages", we should apply the following;

It's common courtesy not to spit in someones beer in a pub. Sure it's not exactly illegal and if someone punches you, it's their responsibility, but ti's not very nice now is it.

Same goes for burning someones holy book. Sure it may be legal, but it's not very nice and it's even a tad more offensive then rubbing against someones old lady.

And yes as mega-D said below. It's like masturbation; fine in your own privacy, don't show it to others.

 

[megadave]

I think if you want to burn something in the privacy of your own home then fine. However if you film it, photograph it, whatever it and show it to some people in order to provoke them then you're a fucking twat and deserve to be punished.

 

[Wij]

We punish twats for being twattish now ?

That could lead to the arrest of half the country.

 

[Wij]

It's common courtesy not to spit in someones beer in a pub. Sure it's not exactly illegal and if someone punches you, it's their responsibility, but ti's not very nice now is it.

Actually there probably is a law against spitting in someone's pint. Assuming they just called his pint a puff instead then yes, that's how it works. If you punch someone who insults you or your pint then YOU have committed an offence. The other person was just a twat.

 

[Scouse]

I disagree. The act itself only has the message "I don't like your religion". Any violence that ensues is the responsibility of the person(s) CHOOSING to take offence and perpetrate violence.

This. And justifying their actions through their belief in Islam.

 

[Scouse]

So long as they only do it in the way you approve of right?
Just look one post above yours

I'm not commenting on that.

Edit. Ah, get it now (stoned). They're two separate things.

One is an act of intellectual non-conformity that hurts noone apart from in their mind and the other is something enforced on someone else.

Not saying I'd ban the jilbab either. There's better ways of fighting a religion.

 

[DaGaffer]

I disagree. The act itself only has the message "I don't like your religion". Any violence that ensues is the responsibility of the person(s) CHOOSING to take offence and perpetrate violence.

Its irrelevant whether you disagree or not. If there's a law on the books that makes it an offence to incite religious hatred and you burn the Koran, and act known to incite a violent response (and whether you like it or not, burning a Koran has to be seen in that context, if that law exists), then you've broken the law. It doesn't matter whether you or I think that anyone who gets offended to the point of violence by the torching of compressed tree matter and ink is a fucking idiot, there's now a law where they're allowed to be offended. If the "offended" party then commits a violent act off the back of the "incitement", they too have broken the law, just a different one.

 

[Wij]

Its irrelevant whether you disagree or not. If there's a law on the books that makes it an offence to incite religious hatred and you burn the Koran, and act known to incite a violent response (and whether you like it or not, burning a Koran has to be seen in that context, if that law exists), then you've broken the law. It doesn't matter whether you or I think that anyone who gets offended to the point of violence by the torching of compressed tree matter and ink is a fucking idiot, there's now a law where they're allowed to be offended. If the "offended" party then commits a violent act off the back of the "incitement", they too have broken the law, just a different one.

The law states that the intention has to be to stir up hatred and incite violence but the 'koran burning' incites violence against oneself. Even if it is known that this *might* happen a reasonable defense should argue that the intention could not have been to provoke violence against oneself, as that is not rational, and that any violence was just a possible undesired outcome.

If the incitement is from one's own group towards another in the hope that your supporters will kick bells out of theirs then the law would be simple enough to understand and prosecute. This is not the case and is probably not what the law was designed to cover. It really depends on the judge and how they choose to interpret the law. Hopefully a judge will use common sense and realise that "inciting violence against oneself and those one sympathises with" is a travesty of even this skidmark of a law.

 

[DaGaffer]

The law states that the intention has to be to stir up hatred and incite violence but the 'koran burning' incites violence against oneself.

Unfortunately the law makes no distinction about whether the incitement is against yourself or not. It doesn't even make it clear about whether those being "incited" are even in the UK or UK citizens. Of course UK law will deal with this through case law eventually, but right now with no precedent to go on, who knows which way the judiciary will go?

 

[Wij]

Unfortunately the law makes no distinction about whether the incitement is against yourself or not. It doesn't even make it clear about whether those being "incited" are even in the UK or UK citizens. Of course UK law will deal with this through case law eventually, but right now with no precedent to go on, who knows which way the judiciary will go?

It doesn't make a distinction, no, but a decent defense could have a field day with the ramifications of allowing it to be interpreted in all possible configurations. I'll agree though that it's just a case of waiting for case law to interpret it.

<- I'm in trouble for inciting the Smilians to murder people vaguely similar to me in some fashion

 

[old.Osy]

Just waiting to see the reaction once word gets out and then the customary "oh those savages posts" inc.

Oh, those savages! To arms!










No, not really.

 

[Zede]

A mate of a good mate who used to hang around with us was a bit of a geezer, ok he was a obnoxious twat -the type to say if you had been recently to Tenerife, he had just been to elevenarife.

Back in his early 20s he used to do some martial arts, and fancies himself as a bit of a hard knock, but in truth just a delluded ex coke head. He made it very clear over a few months NOT to get into an argument with him, as he always got violent. Everyone who knew him knew this, so he nobody ever disagreed with him, and he went on thinking his world view was the right one.

One evening i had had enough, and called his bluff. He shouted, called me all sorts, i verbally ripped him a new arsehole and he left...oh and he didnt lift a finger.

No religion should be a allowed to hold the world to ransom. Islam truly is a terrible terrible religion. This book shit alone makes the Zionists and Christians look the little lambs i saw prancing in a field earlier.

Burn a 1000000 of said books in 100 countries, they either declare WW3 on the rest of world or stfu, i suggest stfu.

 

[rynnor]

I read this on another forum but it so encapsulated the problem I deemed it worthy of a repost:

"Offence is not harm and the right not to be offended shouldn't be held as more sacred than people's freedom of expression. While the latter should rightly be curtailed by the harm principle, replacing this exclusion with the 'offence' principle is a slippery slope.

Firstly it's an impossible standard to enforce and is open to all sorts of abuses. More importantly it removes the importance of intention when determining what is illegal. If someone is going to be prosecuted for burning a Quran (or any other religious text or symbol) on their own private property posing no immediate violent threat to others, a presumption of intent is made solely from the act of burning the book itself.

Do you believe that the burning of religious texts unto itself should be good evidence of intent (to intimidate and incite violence) or that such intent needs to be proved in all cases?

Limiting one's freedom by the offence principle opens the door to eliminating the expression of any controversial views and stifles debate on important issues. This is nothing short of establishing official doctrines - by ascribing one set of official facts as impregnable, from which dissent is punished lest it offend someone.

The opposite of democracy. "

 

[old.Tohtori]

Actually there probably is a law against spitting in someone's pint. Assuming they just called his pint a puff instead then yes, that's how it works. If you punch someone who insults you or your pint then YOU have committed an offence. The other person was just a twat.

So we can agree that the bookburning peeps were twats for doing it(akin to puff calling) and be done with it?

The point was mroe towards "We don't have to be dicks about it" though. If we're so civilized as we claim.

i suggest stfu.

"We" could do that also.

The opposite of democracy.

Democracy is simply a delusion(there's no such thing) used to as much as effect as religion to defend actions.

 

[Corran]

To be honest, if this is the attitude with the Koran burning, I would love to see the reaction to someone getting a copy of every religious text and making one big bonfire with them.
Would be great fun, because if they try to say "oh you are trying to incite reaction etc", then the simple arguement is "no, I do not believe in religion, it incites violence and hatred and as such all deserve to be burned"

I honestly believe that without religion the world would be better, would be one less thing for the twats to fight about. Moral code > religion

<edit:
And I say this as I get ready to go down to Southampton for a religious ceremony! Brother wants me and the missus to be godparents to my nephew. They aint even religious so it a bit of a mockery but nevermind!>

 

[Chronictank]

Yet from my experience and simply taking charity work, people who follow the main religions have a better moral code than those without.
And to pre-empt the inevitable nonsense, there is a significant difference between those who practice religion as it is supposed to be done and those who pick and choose the bits they want to suite them

If you want to build a case against religion learn about the religion not the people who supposedly practice it

 

[Corran]

A Religion will be assessed by those that practice it, simple as. I know enough about various religions but none of it matters because it is the people that follow it that matter, and if they use it as reason to do harm then the religion is worthless.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I know enough about various religions but none of it matters because it is the people that follow it that matter, and if they use it as reason to do harm then the religion is worthless.

Ah there you have the key element; it's the people.

This doesn't ofcourse make all religion evil, but humans themselves, which means that with or without, assholes will be assholes.

 

[Chronictank]

A Religion will be assessed by those that practice it, simple as. I know enough about various religions but none of it matters because it is the people that follow it that matter, and if they use it as reason to do harm then the religion is worthless.

So using your thinking if you got rid of atheism then there would be no poverty, after all if you want to broad brush religion then uncapped debt is a creation of atheism (since under islamic banking there would be noone with debt higher than the assets they can write it against thus a result of religion)

Down with atheism for a better society

That's before we even get onto easy targets like Democracy and Capitalism, surely even you see the folly of your argument?

 

[Krazeh]

So using your thinking if you got rid of atheism then there would be no poverty, after all if you want to broad brush religion then uncapped debt is a creation of atheism since under islamic banking there would be noone with debt higher than the assets they can write it against thus a result of religion.

Hang on, let me get this straight. You're trying to argue that not holding a belief in god leads to a society with uncapped debt? How exactly are you managing to make that link?

 

[Wij]

uncapped debt is a creation of atheism (since under islamic banking there would be noone with debt higher than the assets they can write it against

Epic logic fail !

 

[Turamber]

To be honest, if this is the attitude with the Koran burning, I would love to see the reaction to someone getting a copy of every religious text and making one big bonfire with them.
Would be great fun, because if they try to say "oh you are trying to incite reaction etc", then the simple arguement is "no, I do not believe in religion, it incites violence and hatred and as such all deserve to be burned"

So your hatred for the incitement of violence and hate would lead you to carryout your own hateful act which could incite to violence? That is some odd leap of logic there.

Not all religious people are violent, the vast majority of them are not. Some supporters of political parties have been known to kill the supporters of their adversaries - should politics be banned too?

 

[Chronictank]

Hang on, let me get this straight. You're trying to argue that not holding a belief in god leads to a society with uncapped debt? How exactly are you managing to make that link?

Islamic Banking is based on hadith's and Islamic beliefs, thus a product of religion.
In islamic banking (real islamic banking not the pseudo nonsense currently implemented by banks like HSBC) in its simplest form there is no debt beyond the assets you own, thus no interest on that debt, thus no debt cycle.

Currently implemented banking does not have this, you can borrow more than your assets thus the debt cycle is created. As it is a product no based on any religion it can be associated with the lack of religion, i.e. Atheism

So if i was to be ridiculous i could attribute lack of religion to poverty, simple no?

Not that it really matters, the viewpoint is ridiculous

 

[Wij]

Islamic Banking is based on hadith's and Islamic beliefs, thus a product of religion.
In islamic banking (real islamic banking not the pseudo nonsense currently implemented by banks like HSBC) in its simplest form there is no debt beyond the assets you own, thus no interest on that debt, thus no debt cycle.

Currently implemented banking does not have this, you can borrow more than your assets thus the debt cycle is created. As it is a product no based on any religion it can be associated with the lack of religion, i.e. Atheism

So if i was to be ridiculous i could attribute lack of religion to poverty, simple no?

Not that it really matters, the viewpoint is ridiculous

No, the logic is ridiculous

. <- the point
































<- You

 

[Chronictank]

No, the logic is ridiculous

. <- the point

<- You

rather than snide one liners, perhaps explain?

 

[Wij]

As it is a product no based on any religion it can be associated with the lack of religion, i.e. Atheism

That isn't logical. The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Also, the banking system has many roots in religions throughout the ages. Mel Gibson would rant on to you about Jewish money-lenders if you gave him a chance

But that isn't the point. Your argument is not logical in any shape or form.