You may have to understand Kirth that I do not see it as my role on this thread to seek answers for you. I think you're being unrealistic that you will find a website with that as its specific focus.
And I don't see a point in continuing to reply to you past this, since you clearly don't bother to read them (two in a row now). I've since found exactly such a web site, posted on it, and linked to it... and shared that their own conclusion was much the same as mine.
So this isn't so much "Kirth is against all Muslims" now as "Kirth and a bunch of moderate Muslims are against violent Islam and against Muslims who claim to be moderate, but turn a blind eye to it." ANd I'm especially against people who think that any criticism of any Muslims is "Islamophobia" (and you seem to be very firmly in that camp).
I'm pretty sure you are mistaken about that. A sidewalk in front of a building is public property (though the owner of the property must still maintain it, yet it isn't their property, but *head explodes*). If you walk up on to my porch and knock on my door, I perfectly within my rights to demand you to get off of my property. If you did not remove yourself to the sidewalk out front, I could call the cops and have you arrest for trespassing.It is why you see a reporter walk up, knock on the door and be told to get off the property, and in the next shot they are out by the curb. Because they have no legal right to stand on someone else's porch. That is not public space.
That means that legally nobody can walk up to your front door. If I drop by your house for a surprise visit I have broken the law by knocking on your door, before you run me off with your shotgun :-). I have the right to approach your door and knock on it and indicate my presence (you can decide if you want me there or not). If I remained on your property without announcing my self I am trespassing.
That means that legally nobody can walk up to your front door. If I drop by your house for a surprise visit I have broken the law by knocking on your door, before you run me off with your shotgun :-). I have the right to approach your door and knock on it and indicate my presence (you can decide if you want me there or not). If I remained on your property without announcing my self I am trespassing.
I'm pretty sure you are mistaken about that. A sidewalk in front of a building is public property (though the owner of the property must still maintain it, yet it isn't their property, but *head explodes*). If you walk up on to my porch and knock on my door, I perfectly within my rights to demand you to get off of my property. If you did not remove yourself to the sidewalk out front, I could call the cops and have you arrest for trespassing.It is why you see a reporter walk up, knock on the door and be told to get off the property, and in the next shot they are out by the curb. Because they have no legal right to stand on someone else's porch. That is not public space.
Or if you stay after I have told you to leave.
I will agree, the property right is not 100% for someone's porch. It is a means of approach, but it is not a public space, where anyone who feels like it can make a protest or whatever. It has some quasi-public features, and I would only agree with that for the main entrance, not for rear entrances and such; but it is not a true public space. Let's not delude ourselves on that detail.
I can counter argue that all Americans were complicit in supporting Terrorism in Europe by turning a blind eye to funds being sent to the IRA by US citizens and so on.If I self-identified as Irish-American, or had family in Ireland, you can be damn sure I would have acted one way or the other.
I'm asking self-identifying Muslims to act on what they claim Islam is about -- is that so unreasonable? So far I've found some who do -- a small group in Arizona -- and a lot more who don't. And not so amazingly, the guys I found who are acting on it see the exact same problem I do.
Do you Identify your self as a US citizen, when US citizens were giving money to the IRA to kill UK citizens why did you not protest? Apply the same rules to your self. As far as I can see there is no difference between you a US citizen not acting against a fellow US citizen committing a crime of hate and violence and a Muslim taking no action against a crime of hate and violence.
The average person will say ohh those fanatics are stupid but I am too busy trying to survive and its so far away what can I do - no mater the nationality, race, religion or gender.
Not true -- I had a whole post on the HuffPo article as of 6 hrs 23 min ago, reproduced here:So only two of them then? I am sure there was more?
You posted 3 links, two I commented on, and the third a statement from Shaykh Muhammad Afifi al-Akitia saying, in essence, "Allah probably doesn't want you to kill people, but I personally won't do a thing about it" (specifically, it says: "The result in Islamic jurisprudence is: if a Muslim carries out such an attack voluntarily, he becomes a murderer and not a martyr or a hero, and he will be punished for that in the Next World.")
Wait, where did it say Dove was a satellite of Westboro?! Dove was supposedly non-denominational and independent. Just because some of their members were at the same protests doesn't mean they are linked.The 5:16 update to the link explains everything. The Florida congregation is a Westboro Baptist satellite church:
Update at 5:16 p.m. ET: Westboro Baptist Church, the fringe anti-gay Kansas church that pickets funerals of American soldiers, has said it would hold its own Quran-burning if Jones canceled his."WBC burned the Koran once – and if you sissy brats of Doomed america bully Terry Jones and the Dove World Outreach Center until they change their plans to burn that blasphemous tripe called the Koran, then WBC will burn it (again), to clearly show you some things," the church announced in a news release this week, the Gainesville Sun writes.
Dove World congregants have joined Westboro members at funerals across the country. They say God is punishing America for being tolerant of homosexuals.
Allow me to restate what the internet failed to convey.
I am not stating that Dove World is an explicit or even implicit satellite of Westboro. My statement was more in a jest along the lines of "birds of a feather..." I consider them to be idiots for their Koran/Quran (or however anyone wishes to spell it) ideas and I mockingly called them a satellite of Westboro because their previous associations make it seem that they are a small branch that fell off the much larger stupid tree, the Westboro Baptists. :)
Does that make more sense?
|
So this isn't so much "Kirth is against all Muslims" now as "Kirth and a bunch of moderate Muslims are against violent Islam and against Muslims who claim to be moderate, but turn a blind eye to it." ANd I'm especially against people who think that any criticism of any Muslims is "Islamophobia" (and you seem to be very firmly in that camp).
I reply to the posts as I see them Kirth. No need for a tantrum.
Who is claiming you are Islamophobic? You're the one who has the attitude of it must be proven to me right now or I won't believe.
Now, you accuse me of claiming you are Islamophobic? I am expressing that I do not support your view. I do not need someone to stand up and wave a flag to believe there are Muslims out there who oppose violence and extremism.
You are arrogant enough to claim that only you went on a search for a website stating your specific topic. I posted links. However, only you went on that search? Luckily, you were successful!
Kirth, you're a complete stranger. I have no idea what the hell you truly believe. Really, it has no impact at all on either of our lives once we walk away from this forum.
Now you make an accusation. That I am calling you Islamophobic. So, you assume that since I do not agree with you, that I must be utterly biased in favour of Islam and its followers? If you can argue one side and I another, however, you cannot accept that I do not support your argument? Since, I actively attempted to find some links, and admitted that they were not completely refuting your argument, then simply put -- You are the one ignoring the content of posts as you see fit.
Who is claiming you are Islamophobic?
Did you use the term? No, but repeated statements like "you are painting Muslims with too broad a brush" are more a polite way of phrasing it.
You are arrogant enough to claim that only you went on a search for a website stating your specific topic. I posted links.
Your links didn't "not exactly" address the point; they totally failed to adress it in any way. I continued searching, and was honest enough to post what I found. It's interesting how you mention how "specific" the topic is -- since one would logically expect "Muslims who act in opposition to violent Islam" to be a lot broader, if the vast majority indeed oppose it, rather than simply look away.
So, you assume that since I do not agree with you, that I must be utterly biased in favour of Islam and its followers?
Not at all. I do think that you're awfully quick to defend Muslims against accusations, though, and stubborn in disagreeing with anyone who criticizes Islam.
---
I'll also mention yet again that I'm not convinced that any of my arguments are correct. What I AM convinced of is that most people are unwilling to address those arguments with evidence, as opposed to stating what they "obviously" know is true.
|
Unfortunately without the right to make an ass of yourself there cannot be a right to freedom of speech or freedom of expression. Take away the right to be an ass and all you have left is the freedom to not offend anyone.This guy has the right to have his book burning as it is not harming anyone else, and I have the right to call him a jackass for the same reason. My issue is that if you start trying to limit his rights in this instance, you really cannot logically do so without limiting mine as well. To fashion a law that would limit only his right to offend whilst leaving mine intact would simply be hypocrisy.
He is legally able to express himself by burning the Koran. You are legally able to express your opinion of him ... just be a little bit careful on exactly what that opinion is, and exactly how, when and in what form you express it; it could be illegal under laws that deal with ‘fighting words’ or ‘obscenity’. Or he could decide to try to sue you for defamation.
|
|
Not at all. I do think that you're awfully quick to defend Muslims against accusations, though, and stubborn in disagreeing with anyone who criticizes Islam.
I think we're both working on the stubborn angle at the moment Kirth. Not that being stubborn about a topic is uncharacteristic on forums.
In Australia, where I am based, there is a lot of Islamophobia. Having grown up in an environment that was predominantly White (the region I grew up in was 99% White Australian) I also experienced how difficult it was for anyone that was ethnically or racially different.
I work with Muslim students and so I may be overly sensitive to how these young men and women will be portrayed in the future. They are paying for the crimes of a few, but are also feeling less empowered to stand up and say, "I am Muslim and oppose violent fanatics", due to the stigma of being Muslim in Australia.
Now this is a bias on my part, I feel for these students, and really if they consider themselves Australian they should not feel ashamed of their religion if they practice it responsibly and peacefully. Men like Reverend Terry Jones do a lot of damage and not in the sense of setting off Muslim fanatics. It also tarnishes the public perceptions of Islam and Christianity as well.
We work very hard to stop bullying and cyberbullying of Islamic students. There is a lot of misunderstanding and hate, but there are also a lot of non-Muslims who just want to get on with life and live in peace with the Muslim community as well.
Obviously, I fall into that group. However, I would also defend a Christian if they were in the same situation. People in Australia have a right to practice their religion without prejudice, but situations like this simply lead to more negative views of Muslims. Young Muslims do not have the power to defend themselves, they do need advocates in the non-Muslim communities.
He is legally able to express himself by burning the Koran. You are legally able to express your opinion of him ... just be a little bit careful on exactly what that opinion is, and exactly how, when and in what form you express it; it could be illegal under laws that deal with ‘fighting words’ or ‘obscenity’. Or he could decide to try to sue you for defamation.
Unfortunately without the right to make an ass of yourself there cannot be a right to freedom of speech or freedom of expression. Take away the right to be an ass and all you have left is the freedom to not offend anyone.This guy has the right to have his book burning as it is not harming anyone else, and I have the right to call him a jackass for the same reason. My issue is that if you start trying to limit his rights in this instance, you really cannot logically do so without limiting mine as well. To fashion a law that would limit only his right to offend whilst leaving mine intact would simply be hypocrisy.
Expressing an opinion is not stating a false fact about someone and therefore is not defamation.
"Fighting words" would only apply if I were specifically attempting to instigate violence, and obscene speech laws would only apply to anyone who broadcast my words over public airwaves.
Kirth, comment on my links too!
Your links actually supported your case very nicely, I thought, but didn't directly address mine (which is OK -- it was a different focus). If the task were to "find Muslims who claim that killing people over cartoons is bad," then you knocked it out of the park -- but you'll recall I also agreed there were "most likely thousands of Muslims" who have made similar statements. But saying and doing are two different things.
Like I said, I found one group (Jasser's American Islamic Forum for Democracy), and praised them highly for their actions. I also mentioned Jasser's own statement, that all too many moderate Muslims (most of them) turn a blind eye to the excesses of the Jihadists, rather than actively opposing them -- he claims that in order to "take Islam back from the extremists," the moderates have to be willing to choose sides and act decisively in favor of democracy and peace, and I agree with him. I believe that if those moderates had already done so, we'd likely be spared unforunate idiocy like the Koran burning -- certainly we'd all be able to condemn it in unison. Barring that commitment, though, if moderate Muslims won't act against the jihadists, someone else needs to.
They are paying for the crimes of a few, but are also feeling less empowered to stand up and say, "I am Muslim and oppose violent fanatics", due to the stigma of being Muslim in Australia.
I begin to understand better where you're coming from, thanks. Here in the U.S., I actually don't see so much of that apsect (one of my wife's best friends is a Muslim who works for the U.S. state department, and I live in a neighborhood with a large Muslim community). Hell, as an atheist in the U.S., I am personally accused of any amount of immorality, and as one who believes in the morality of humanism, I make an extra effort to reach out and demonstrate that we're not immoral -- and that means, if I see an atheist acting immorally, I feel the need to step in. That's part of the responsibility of choosing to self-identify with a group; no one else will do it for me.
|
|
Pastor Terry Jones claims that he has decided not to go ahead with the Koran burning as the Imam who heads the group planning the mosque near Ground Zero has agreed to move the project further away. This, Pastor Jones says, is a sign from God that he should cancel the book burning. The Imam (Feisal Abdul Rauf) denies that any such deal was reached.
So it seems that Pastor Jones has stepped away from his earlier statements that burning the Koran was to “expose Islam” as a “violent and oppressive religion” and that his actions were “aiming at sharia law”. Was he, in fact, using threats to get something he wanted – changes to the plans for the mosque at Ground Zero?
Or, more likely as others suggested, he was mainly trying to get free publicity, which he has received in droves.
|
|
Kirth, comment on my links too!Your links actually supported your case very nicely, I thought, but didn't directly address mine (which is OK -- it was a different focus). If the task were to "find Muslims who claim that killing people over cartoons is bad," then you knocked it out of the park -- but you'll recall I also agreed there were "most likely thousands of Muslims" who have made similar statements. But saying and doing are two different things.
Like I said, I found one group (Jasser's American Islamic Forum for Democracy), and praised them highly for their actions. I also mentioned Jasser's own statement, that all too many moderate Muslims (most of them) turn a blind eye to the excesses of the Jihadists, rather than actively opposing them -- he claims that in order to "take Islam back from the extremists," the moderates have to be willing to choose sides and act decisively in favor of democracy and peace, and I agree with him. I believe that if those moderates had already done so, we'd likely be spared unforunate idiocy like the Koran burning -- certainly we'd all be able to condemn it in unison. Barring that commitment, though, if moderate Muslims won't act against the jihadists, someone else needs to.
No worries, not sure if you had seen them in the wall of text.
|
|
I begin to understand better where you're coming from, thanks. Here in the U.S., I actually don't see so much of that apsect (one of my wife's best friends is a Muslim who works for the U.S. state department, and I live in a neighborhood with a large Muslim community). As an atheist in the U.S., I am personally accused of any amount of immorality, and as one who believes in it, I make an extra effort to show that atheists are not immoral -- and that means, if I see an atheist acting immorally, I need to step in. That's part of the responsibility of choosing to self-identify with a group; no one else will do it for me.
Come to Australia Kirth, apart from a few clear crackpots and well meaning but misguided folk, I've never been accused of immorality (at least not for not believing in a god or being part of religion - I've been accused of being immoral when I've been immoral...)
Come to Australia Kirth
I recently applied for a job in Perth, but didn't get it.
On my trip to Eastern Europe last month I met a number of very nice Aussies -- and of course an infamous atheist philosopher I quite admire, Russell Blackford, is in Oz as well.|
|
As an atheist in the U.S., I am personally accused of any amount of immorality, and as one who believes in it, I make an extra effort to show that atheists are not immoral -- and that means, if I see an atheist acting immorally, I need to step in. That's part of the responsibility of choosing to self-identify with a group; no one else will do it for me.
I think as Athiests we have a lot of responsibility in dialogue and breaking down the tension between religious groups. I totally agree, that we do have a responsibility to act morally to improve the perception of Atheism.
Muslims in Australia have also become employed through various levels here. However, my experience has been that a lot of young Muslims feel the impact of how their religion is viewed in our society. Many express themselves in ways that suggest that marginalisation.
Unfortunately, teenagers can be extremely harsh to one another. Educating them on avoiding ethnic, racial or religious vilification is difficult. In my school we have had issues with suicide and self-harm, so we're keenly aware of the impact that the school community, and the wider communities, have on our students.
We really try to open up dialogue with the students and parents, and our community is always better for it. There is a large Christian fellowship in our school, but our Muslim students are not as aggregated or supported.
So, definitely, as Atheists we really need to be the ones to lead by example and create positive opportunities in our communities. We have a chance to introduce secular interactions between religious communities that can really open up understanding between young people. Our responsibility is to them, as well as our hope for more future acceptance in our society.
In saying that, wish me luck in our seniors versus teacher dodgeball match next week! We may be fostering better relations amongst our students, but there is no mercy for us older folk!
|
|
On my trip to Eastern Europe last month I met a number of very nice Aussies -- and of course an infamous atheist philosopher I quite admire, Russell Blackford, is in Oz as well.
I hope those Australians were sober! Probably not!
Russell Blackford is a fiction author? I did not realise he was an Athiest as well.
Will have to go off and Wiki him (that sounds kind of strange).
Unfortunately, teenagers can be extremely harsh to one another. Educating them on avoiding ethnic, racial or religious vilification is difficult.
Amen -- I taught remedial 9th graders for 6-7 years. Interestingly, some of the students viewed as being distinctly in various ethnic minorities by the others were, for the most part, some of the most popular kids. The kids who had it worst were the shrinking ones who were afraid to speak up for themselves -- then the others could be like sharks.
Russell Blackford is a fiction author? I did not realise he was an Athiest as well. Will have to go off and Wiki him (that sounds kind of strange).
Check out his blog; it's an excellent one.
|
|
The kids who had it worst were the shrinking ones who were afraid to speak up for themselves -- then the others could be like sharks.
Truth to that one. It takes a lot of work to encourage them to have a voice and it is so fragile that one loss results in many going back to being quiet again.
Actually, one of my most impressive students came from the other side. He was loud, obnoxious and often uncooperative with female teachers. Now he has become one of the most impressive success stories in my career.
Since having in him in two senior classes for two years, he has turned his grades around, toned down and become quite supportive of his peers. He has taken all the advice and criticism onboard.
This has resulted in two extremely quiet students being more active in class and far more easier to encourage to stand out a bit more. Sometimes teenagers just surprise you!
|
|
Expressing an opinion is not stating a false fact about someone and therefore is not defamation.
"Fighting words" would only apply if I were specifically attempting to instigate violence, and obscene speech laws would only apply to anyone who broadcast my words over public airwaves.
That's exactly right as I understand it. That is why I said it would depend on what your opinion was and how and in what manner it was expressed.
If an opinion is expressed such that it could be tested as an expression of 'fact' (true or false) in a court of law it can be treated as defamation if I understand the law correctly. So if you said “I think the man is a jackass” you’d be fine as you’ve clearly expressed it as an opinion and jackass has no legal definition. If you said “the man is clearly an idiot” perhaps he could try to sue you for defamation; it’s an opinion, but you’re presenting it as a fact, and ‘idiot’ has a definition under the law, so he could prove in a court that he does not fall into that legal definition (he may not have much of a case, but he could try). If your anger at his actions offended you so greatly that your opinion was ‘the man is in the same category as murderers and paedophiles’ (an over-reaction, but someone might have that opinion) he’d have a case for defamation as you would have implied he is a criminal. I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong about all of that, happy for someone who is more familiar with the law to educate me.
Likewise, your opinion of him (or its expression) might be so vile or forceful that (depending on how and in what manner it was expressed) it could fall under fighting words or obscenity. I’m not saying that your or my opinion of this person in this case would fall into those definitions, but the possibility exists.
My point is that not all forms of expression (even in the USA, even if they are expressions of honestly felt opinion) fall under Free Speech (or can be made without legal consequence).
Contributor
|
Maybe my view is skewed because I have friends and family deployed to the region (and was in the army not so long ago)…I understand you have strong feelings about the war. I have an old Army buddy who is now a civilian contractor in Iraq.
...any true patriot who loved their country…I take exception to this point as well. Just because someone disagrees with you on a certain point does not immediately call their patriotism into question. This is just shy of name calling and is not a very compelling argument.
Just so I am clear, I believe they should have the right to burn the Qu'ran and I also believe it to be a colossally bad idea. I do not think they should be held accountable for the actions of other people who 'act out' in response to this.
That being said, anybody with half a brain cell and access to the news knows that some things (like burning a Qu'ran) are going to set those events in motion.Anyone with half a brain knows that guns are used to injure and kill people. In fact, burning the Qu'ran does not impart any more capacity to do harm, whereas, a gun, does in fact imbue individuals with an increased capacity to harm another.
Respectfully, while I see with your point that a Qu'ran burning does not force Islamic extremists to increase the vigor and violence of their attacks (no one has chained them to a radiator and forced them to do it at pistol point), and I see your point that people often mistake who holds primary fault in the commission of an act, I think the logic in your argument runs into trouble too.
Taken to its limit, on your train of thought, only the person carrying out the immediate action can be held accountable. Nothing and no one is contributory in any significant way. So by this reasoning, a person who stands on a podium and shouts and calls and otherwise indicates its a good idea to riot is not responsible. Only the person who actually throws a rock through a window is responsible - the actual rioter. Or more blatantly, if I should "fire" in a crowded theater, well I didn't force all those people to run, did I? There own damn faults.
Obviously, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is a clear case of negligently contributing through misleading, and is wrong. Incitement to riot is also illegal, although I'm not lying and putting false fears into anyone. Going further, many states also recognize felony murder, for example. My point is that contributing to outcomes counts.
The questions revolve around reasonableness and degree, negligence or not. The answers are situational and specific. A hard dichotomy between contributor and actor is ultimately a false dichotomy. Its just not that clear cut.
With this bonehead (the Qu'Ran burner - not my favorite poodle poster), my understanding is the U.S. military actually wrote him a polite letter explaining how his actions would contribute to soldiers' deaths and asking him to reconsider. He said no.
PS This latter bit about the letter was something I heard, not something I've read or confirmed.
The questions revolve around reasonableness and degree, negligence or not. The answers are situational and specific.
That's exactly the problem I'm seeing. Ten years ago, it was reasonable to publish cartoons, and the degree of specific blame to anyone killing over it would have been 99.9999%. Now it seems closer to 50-50. What's "reasonable" has radically changed, and therefore, so has the importance of the situation.
|
|
Submitting in fear to those that do react to such displays with violence or threats only encourages further and more extreme violence to smaller "offenses".
I am saddened that the burning may encourage some radical Muslims to take violent action. But the responsibility for that violence lies with THEM. Not with someone that offended them. American soldiers will continue to pay a price for the promotion of American interests abroad. You can blame those who send them to fight or who determine what American interests are. You can blame those who commit the acts of violence. Blaming those whose speech may have offended someone who later commits violence over the offense is a mentatlity that is incompatible with freedom of expression.
Edit: To maybe sum up my thoughts more succinctly: I don't think burning the Koran is a good idea because it shows disrespect to a symbol in some else's religion that I wouldn't want shown to the analogous symbol in my own. BUT if my only reason for not buring the Koran was fear of reprisal, I would be ashamed of my submission to violent threats - and that submission's invitation for more threats and violence intended to cow me into further submission.
+1
|
|
He is legally able to express himself by burning the Koran. You are legally able to express your opinion of him ... just be a little bit careful on exactly what that opinion is, and exactly how, when and in what form you express it; it could be illegal under laws that deal with ‘fighting words’ or ‘obscenity’. Or he could decide to try to sue you for defamation.
Best of luck to him with that lawsuit. I plan to use delaying tactics long enough for the Mothership to whisk him away...
|
That church is not responsible for other peoples actions. Murdering people over a book is a huge overreaction. f#&* them, I say.Its amazing how religious people can be so selective, oh those people that killed people because aren't proper members of the faith.. Bulldust they identify with the faith, their supporters identify with the faith, and if you deny their faith you deny yours. You are dodging responsibility and complicit because you fail to act in opposition.
One one hand you say my "Holy books don't kill people people kill people".... Then you have the hide to argue that other peoples Holy books tell people to kill people HYPOCRISY in the extreme.
Uh guy, I'm an atheist. And I have no idea what bulldust has to do with anything.
|
|
“I will tell my child that it is alright to kill someone in self defence without properly explaining myself, it is not my fault if she later shoots dead a schoolyard bully. People should be responsible for their own actions.”
“In my position as a community leader, I will share my opinion that people of a specific ethnic group are worthy of only contempt. It is not my fault if people who look up to me harass and bully folk of that ethnic group. People should be responsible for their own actions.”
“I don’t like bikie gangs, so I will go to that bikie bar and knock over their motorcycles. It’s not my fault if they decide to beat the crap out of me, people should be responsible for their own actions.”
“I will petition to allow that clearly mentally unstable and angry young man to be allowed to own a gun. It’s not my fault if he shoots someone. People should be responsible for their own actions.”
“I will protest against allowing these refugees into our country. It’s not my fault that their country is in the grip of violent civil war, they don’t have a functioning government, and they will probably be raped and killed if they go back. People should be responsible for their own actions.”
“I will tell that girl every day how much she repulses me because I don’t like ugly people. It is not my fault if one day she kills herself. People should be responsible for their own actions.”
“I will burn this book, without perhaps fully understanding its cultural and religious significance to a measureable two digit percentage of the world’s population. I will not care that I am probably offending to a lesser or greater extent a significantly high number of that 23% of the world’s population, despite the fact that my true quarrel is (or should be) with a relatively small group of them. It is not my fault if a dozen or a hundred or a thousand or ten thousand (in many cases) disaffected, angry, poorly educated, poverty stricken young men get so riled up by my actions that they are easy prey for the charismatic and evil terrorist leaders who can convince them to take up arms against our soldiers or strap bombs to themselves and blow up innocent people. It’s not my fault if countrymen of mine, people fighting for the same cause that I purport to believe in are killed through a chain of events sparked, at least in part, by my actions. I will bear no part of that responsibility, not the tiniest fraction, because people should be responsible for their own actions.”
Now obviously most of these are rather hyperbolic examples. I do think that everyone does and should bear a responsibility for their own actions, but I think we have to acknowledge some sort of responsibility for how others react to our words and actions, especially when such reactions could be reasonably foreseen. That, to me, is part of taking responsibility for your own actions.
Uh guy, I'm an atheist. And I have no idea what bulldust has to do with anything.That church is not responsible for other peoples actions. Murdering people over a book is a huge overreaction. f#&* them, I say.Its amazing how religious people can be so selective, oh those people that killed people because aren't proper members of the faith.. Bulldust they identify with the faith, their supporters identify with the faith, and if you deny their faith you deny yours. You are dodging responsibility and complicit because you fail to act in opposition.
One one hand you say my "Holy books don't kill people people kill people".... Then you have the hide to argue that other peoples Holy books tell people to kill people HYPOCRISY in the extreme.
Mothman put my argument far more eloquently than I did....
I am a secular humanist and a Skeptic btw along with Carl Sagan, Joss Whedon, Frank Zappa, James Randi, Terry Pratchett, Gene Roddenberry, Salman Rushdie, Albert Einstein, and Roger Ebert.
So Kirth & Jared you are not alone in your Atheism.
+1Submitting in fear to those that do react to such displays with violence or threats only encourages further and more extreme violence to smaller "offenses".
I am saddened that the burning may encourage some radical Muslims to take violent action. But the responsibility for that violence lies with THEM. Not with someone that offended them. American soldiers will continue to pay a price for the promotion of American interests abroad. You can blame those who send them to fight or who determine what American interests are. You can blame those who commit the acts of violence. Blaming those whose speech may have offended someone who later commits violence over the offense is a mentatlity that is incompatible with freedom of expression.
Edit: To maybe sum up my thoughts more succinctly: I don't think burning the Koran is a good idea because it shows disrespect to a symbol in some else's religion that I wouldn't want shown to the analogous symbol in my own. BUT if my only reason for not buring the Koran was fear of reprisal, I would be ashamed of my submission to violent threats - and that submission's invitation for more threats and violence intended to cow me into further submission.
Again, no problem with not wanting to bow to fear, but when one does something like this simply to show that they aren't a coward, that's where things start to get weird.
The general attitude of Australian Muslims can be found here.
Sydney Morning Herald: Who is this Koran burner? Muslims ask .
The general attitude is that Terry Jones is an ill mannered attention seeking nutter and they are not going to do anything in response (much to the medias disappointment).
|
Contributor
|
“I will tell my child that it is alright to kill someone in self defence without properly explaining myself, it is not my fault if she later shoots dead a schoolyard bully. People should be responsible for their own actions.”
“In my position as a community leader, I will share my opinion that people of a specific ethnic group are worthy of only contempt. It is not my fault if people who look up to me harass and bully folk of that ethnic group. People should be responsible for their own actions.”
“I don’t like bikie gangs, so I will go to that bikie bar and knock over their motorcycles. It’s not my fault if they decide to beat the crap out of me, people should be responsible for their own actions.”
“I will petition to allow that clearly mentally unstable and angry young man to be allowed to own a gun. It’s not my fault if he shoots someone. People should be responsible for their own actions.”
“I will protest against allowing these refugees into our country. It’s not my fault that their country is in the grip of violent civil war, they don’t have a functioning government, and they will probably be raped and killed if they go back. People should be responsible for their own actions.”
“I will tell that girl every day how much she repulses me because I don’t like ugly people. It is not my fault if one day she kills herself. People should be responsible for their own actions.”
“I will burn this book, without perhaps fully understanding its cultural and religious significance to a measureable two digit percentage of the world’s population. I will not care that I am probably offending to a lesser or greater extent a significantly high number of that 23% of the world’s population, despite the fact that my true quarrel is (or should be) with a relatively small group of them. It is not my fault if a dozen or a hundred or a thousand or ten thousand (in many cases) disaffected, angry, poorly educated, poverty stricken young men get so riled up by my actions that they are easy prey for the charismatic and...
+1 Hey Mothman - can I crosspost that to FB?
|
Contributor
|
Mothman put my argument far more eloquently than I did....
I am a secular humanist and a Skeptic btw along with Carl Sagan, Joss Whedon, Frank Zappa, James Randi, Terry Pratchett, Gene Roddenberry, Salman Rushdie, Albert Einstein, and Roger Ebert.
So Kirth & Jared you are not alone in your Atheism.
+1
“I will tell my child that it is alright to kill someone in self defence without properly explaining myself, it is not my fault if she later shoots dead a schoolyard bully. People should be responsible for their own actions.”
“In my position as a community leader, I will share my opinion that people of a specific ethnic group are worthy of only contempt. It is not my fault if people who look up to me harass and bully folk of that ethnic group. People should be responsible for their own actions.”
“I don’t like bikie gangs, so I will go to that bikie bar and knock over their motorcycles. It’s not my fault if they decide to beat the crap out of me, people should be responsible for their own actions.”
“I will petition to allow that clearly mentally unstable and angry young man to be allowed to own a gun. It’s not my fault if he shoots someone. People should be responsible for their own actions.”
“I will protest against allowing these refugees into our country. It’s not my fault that their country is in the grip of violent civil war, they don’t have a functioning government, and they will probably be raped and killed if they go back. People should be responsible for their own actions.”
“I will tell that girl every day how much she repulses me because I don’t like ugly people. It is not my fault if one day she kills herself. People should be responsible for their own actions.”
“I will burn this book, without perhaps fully understanding its cultural and religious significance to a measureable two digit percentage of the world’s population. I will not care that I am probably offending to a lesser or greater extent a significantly high number of that 23% of the world’s population, despite the fact that my true quarrel is (or should be) with a relatively small group of them. It is not my fault if a dozen or a hundred or a thousand or ten thousand (in many cases) disaffected, angry, poorly educated, poverty stricken young men get so riled up by my actions that they are easy prey for the charismatic and...
Way to line your straw men all up in a row.
+1Mothman put my argument far more eloquently than I did....
I am a secular humanist and a Skeptic btw along with Carl Sagan, Joss Whedon, Frank Zappa, James Randi, Terry Pratchett, Gene Roddenberry, Salman Rushdie, Albert Einstein, and Roger Ebert.
So Kirth & Jared you are not alone in your Atheism.
This movement must end.
Way to line your straw men all up in a row.
ummm did you read this part....
Now obviously most of these are rather hyperbolic examples. I do think that everyone does and should bear a responsibility for their own actions, but I think we have to acknowledge some sort of responsibility for how others react to our words and actions, especially when such reactions could be reasonably foreseen. That, to me, is part of taking responsibility for your own actions.
The general attitude of Australian Muslims can be found here.
Sydney Morning Herald: Who is this Koran burner? Muslims ask .
The general attitude is that Terry Jones is an ill mannered attention seeking nutter and they are not going to do anything in response (much to the medias disappointment).
Well, +1 to that at least.
…I think the logic in your argument runs into trouble too. Taken to its limit…
Fair enough. However, taking the opposing argument to its limit puts us in an equally disturbing place. So where does that leave us?
This movement must end.+1Mothman put my argument far more eloquently than I did....
I am a secular humanist and a Skeptic btw along with Carl Sagan, Joss Whedon, Frank Zappa, James Randi, Terry Pratchett, Gene Roddenberry, Salman Rushdie, Albert Einstein, and Roger Ebert.
So Kirth & Jared you are not alone in your Atheism.
Whats wrong with Joss? He is the man that came up with evil Willow, and Firefly and playing poker with kittens and puppies.
Whats wrong with Joss? He is the man that came up with evil Willow, and Firefly and playing poker with kittens and puppies.This movement must end.+1Mothman put my argument far more eloquently than I did....
I am a secular humanist and a Skeptic btw along with Carl Sagan, Joss Whedon, Frank Zappa, James Randi, Terry Pratchett, Gene Roddenberry, Salman Rushdie, Albert Einstein, and Roger Ebert.
So Kirth & Jared you are not alone in your Atheism.
My mistake friend, I thought everyone on here knew of my insane hatred for Joss Whedon and his thinly-veiled re-writes and fan fiction masquerading as good television. For a brief synopsis of why I hate Joss Whedon, please see this link.