My attitude is that, while I personally would not burn a copy of the Koran (as I don’t find it a particularly Christlike or otherwise charitable thing to do), nor even applaud it, I will stand up most vociferously for another’s right to do so.

dallske, I’m not talking about Islam as a whole. I’m talking about Western Civilization as a whole. As a westerner, those are the only terms that matter to me. To the extent that any movement or culture puts itself in the way of western civilization, they will meet with failure and disappointment. That’s their problem, not ours.

This has bothered me a lot. One of my best friends (in fact, the best man at my wedding) is a Muslim who from Afghanistan. He managed to flee a few years ago when he found out that a war lord was trying to kill him for assisting an American reporter.

It’s hard to dismiss these violent Muslims as being uneducated simpletons or centuries behind Western civilizations (and thus compare them to the Crusaders and Inquisitors of Christianity): They were responding to something that happened on the other side of the globe; they have technology, a knowledge of the global world, etc.

On the other hand, it’s hard to just blame Islam itself for this. Afterall, Christians have been guilty of nearly the exact same sins in the name of Christianity and the Bible. And certainly, not all Muslims, like my friend Najib, would ever condone such a thing.

I think what this largely comes down to is (1) we have a culture that has simply not learned (nor really needed to learn) how to participate in a multi-cultural society; and more importantly (2) we have people who see and understand violence in a complete different way than we do. When violence and death (whether from the Taliban, internally, or from war) is a daily part of your life, it can easily become a part of the way you act and live–after all is killing really that bad when everyone around you is dying anyways?

Of course regardless of whether or not Islam is to blame, the question remains of whether or not it should affect the free and legal choices we make in the US. I find the call to burn Quran’s regrettable and pathetic, as it simply mirrors the ignorance and patheticness of Terry Jones. On the other hand, I hate the idea of not acting because of some other ignorant 1st worlders want to respond with violence.

But then again, is it right to do certain things when we know that it would likely cause harm to others. For example, take Islam and the Quran out of the discussion for moment. Pretend instead that a psychotic killer has announced that he will kill 12 innocent people if you eat a red m&m. Would you then post a video of you eating the red m&m online to show the psycho that you won’t be threatened by him? If you did so, and he killed the twelve persons, how culpable would you be of their deaths?

Narrator,

Simple answer. Not. At. All. That ranks as one of the dumbest hypotheticals if all time.

Oh yeah, it was this thread:

http://www.mormonmentality.org/2010/09/13/there-must-be-50-ways-to-kill-the-koran.htm

Glad to see you’re raising the maturity level on this one, narrator. Stay classy.

I agree that there’s a distinct possibility that someone who burns a Koran, knowing that it is likely that the burning of the Koran will drive madmen to murder, will be held responsible in the afterlife for intentionally (albeit indirectly) participating in the murders of innocents. Our actions have consequences. Even actions that are perfectly legal.

Of course, Terry Jones isn’t any worse than the people committing murder in his name–they all give their religions (Christianity, Islam) a bad name.

Before you go burning Qurans, consider 1 Corintians 8.

8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.

…

12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.

13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

Or, in other words:

But burning the Quran commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we burn, are we the better; neither, if we burn not, are we the worse.

Wherefore, if burning the Quran make my brother to offend, I will burn no Qurans while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

Ditto, DKL. I was watching the news—20 dead in Afganistan and towers of smoke. These people are nuts. An American (idiot) burns the Koran in front of 5 people (not taking into account the internet) and they kill each other and destroy their home? They’re nuts. I’m still convinced we should have just made a parking lot in Afganistan for our military bases.

PDOE, are you kidding me? How many bibles and American flags have those people burned? We don’t go and kill EACH OTHER over it. If that minister’s an idiot, so are the people of Afganistan. They’ll use any excuse to kill each other.

Narrator and Paul, sounds like you guys are channeling me and she-must-not-be-named. I’m actually kind of Afgani in the carrying a grudge department. I will direct my great-grandchildren (in my will) to go pee on the grave of her great-grandchildren.

Okay, fine, I’m your evil twin.

I’m glad we haven’t made a parking lot of Afganistan I have an Afghani Muslim friend and she is one of the most spiritual people I have ever met. Sadly she speaks in hushed tones when she admits being Muslim because of the American backlash.

MAC,

I made it pretty clear that my example was limited to the question of whether or not someone like Jones is accountable for murders acted out by another when that person knowingly insights the murderer to act out.

I think there is a possibility (not sure how likely) that Jones will be killed by a Islamic zealot over this.

Just wanted to pop in before offering a fuller reply. MCQ, I was really bugged by your comment to the narrator: “Glad to see you’re raising the maturity level on this one, narrator. Stay classy.”

It seems to me this is a strange shifting of blame in regards to who is responsible for the level at which the subject is being discussed. Loyd’s post was reasoned, and even contained some personal elements, as well as a hypothetical geared to engage in reasoning about the morality of actions. In contrast, Paul M.’s #6 was brash and confrontational and was nothing more than a negation without reason. Then you chastise Loyd for responding in kind?

I admit I don’t know the history behind you and Paul, maybe you’re best buddies or maybe you’re afraid of him or maybe something else. Either way, I thought I’d throw a measure of support behind Loyd and let you know, from my perspective, you messed up. No one else called you on it, so I’ll play thread nanny in my first post to this blog (as far as I recall). I know it’s pretty annoying, but thought I’d give it a go anyway.

As far as a fuller reply is concerned, it seems it would do us all well to try and better understand the mentality and perspective of those we are judging as violent and extreme. It is hard for me to justify the sort of violence we see in reaction to Qur’an burning, and my American sense of freedom of speech tells me such reactions ought not to be anyway. At the same time, I appreciate Last Lemmings’s wise use of Paul and his milk/meat approach. Seems to be the approach a Christian would take anyway.

MCQ: Sorry if I was a bit confusing. Some clarification.

1. What I meant to say was “We [Americans] have [are dealing with] a culture [Afghani] that has simply not learned (nor really needed to learn) how to participate in a multi-cultural society [mostly because the general populace has not been included in global capitalism]“.

2. I am not arguing that such is the case at all. What I EXPLICITLY stated was: “we have people who see and understand violence in a complete different way than we do. When violence and death (whether from the Taliban, internally, or from war) is a daily part of your life, it can easily become a part of the way you act and live–after all is killing really that bad when everyone around you is dying anyways?”

“In practice, what you are suggesting is not only anti-democratic, it is stupid.”

No. You are stupid.

“Are we really expected to hand all power to any extremist or nutcase who issues an ultimatum?”

I never said we should. Notice, that my m&m example answered with a question mark. One of these things –> “?” Do you know what that means?

“If some loony-toon says that apples are of the devil and he is going to assault anyone eating apples do we cut down all the apple trees and eat bananas?”

Your analogy fails. Again, I said: “Would you then post a video of you eating the red m&m online to show the psycho that you won’t be threatened by him?” And later said: “My example . . . was meant to only limit the question to that of the morality of actively proving a benign moral point (freedom to act without threats) when their are known (or probable) tragic consequences.”

Eating an apple because you like the taste and find them nutritious, despite the potential consequences, is different that eating an apple to prove a point against a psycho, despite the potential consequences. If you truly believe that eating an apple for food is comparable to burning a Quran (or eating an m&m) to prove a point is analogous, then you simply live with a different logic than I and we simply must stop discussing anything due to our incommensurability.

“Would there be any behavior or action that wouldn’t be potentially controlled by any goofball willing to respond violently?”

Again, you fail to note that the motivation for acting against the psycho is important. Jones was trying to incite violence to prove a point about radical muslims. It wasn’t even about him being an ass who enjoys burning others’ religious texts.

“Would there be any behavior or action that wouldn’t be potentially controlled by any goofball willing to respond violently?”

When lives are at stake, there are certainly better utilitarian and pragmatic approaches than placing our heads between our legs and shouting “F&*% you Muslims” as we burn their Qurans.

Word to Tim as well, “Our actions have consequences. Even actions that are perfectly legal.”

“PDOE, are you kidding me? How many bibles and American flags have those people burned?”

“Considering that The Saudi Government regularly burns bibles and other non Islamic religious materials as a matter of state policy and that I have personally witnessed Fatwas seeking the death of LDS converts from Islam I find the burning of one or 2 Korans to pale in comparison.”

No reason we should hold ourselves to a higher standard, is there.

“I think there is a possibility (not sure how likely) that Jones will be killed by a Islamic zealot over this.”
That’s all we need, for this attention whore to become even more popular when somebody kills him. Then we’d have people all over the country burning Korans to make some sort of stupid statement.

BHodges:

I don’t know who Loyd is.

But I really don’t know PaulM either, and I’m not sure why you think I do. If someone says a hypothetical is dumb, though, I think that is a legitimate comment. turning around and calling that person dumb, in response, is not a legitimate comment. It is childish. I thought that was obvious.

But I’m done talking about it.

MAC,

“The threat to do violence (to their fellow Muslims no less) is a non-passive act. Even in the violent environment of Afghanistan, it is not definite eventuality.”

To pretend that these actions can be understood bereft of the violent climate of Afghanistan is, in your words, stupid.

To pretend that these actions can be understood bereft of the violent climate of Afghanistan is, in your words, stupid.

Okay. What’s your point?

If someone says a hypothetical is dumb, though, I think that is a legitimate comment.

Your thought on that issue is really dumb.

narrator, I’d say your response there was dumb but I think it’s only legitimate if I say that about hypothetical.

In case your dad can’t help you, here is my point. Christians have been guilty of similar acts in the name of Christianity and the Bible. Are you going to lay blame on Christianity for what happened with the Crusades and Inquisition? Is Christianity all too blame for the Salem witch trials? Of course not.

The blame for what happened in Afghanistan shouldn’t be laid at the feet of Islam as DKL ignorantly wants to do. It should even be solely laid at the feet of ignorance (else DKL would be guilty by association). Rather it is a combination of things–in particular being in a culture where death and violence is an every day event. Does that justify their actions? No, but to pretend that such a violent culture (who has witnessed hundreds of thousands violently die–many, many, many directly by the US military) in the last decade (and many more in the years preceding under the Taliban), is either willful ignorance or shallowness in thinking. Furthemore, given the lack of multi-cultural understanding and violent culture, Islam (or Christianity or nationalism or (fill in the black with a preferred religion/ideology)) can provide the justification for such violence.

narrator,

It seems like you are not really capable of defending a position and when you get confused you call people names.

No one is pretending or has pretended to understand the actions of the rioters bereft of the violent crime in Afghanistan.  So your bringing it up is a non sequitur.  Similarly BHodges, no one has suggested that we “either burn Qur’an’s to teach those ignorant radicals or else we are weak-kneed simpering fools.”  And repeating the accusation is a poor attempt to smear the people you don’t agree with while contributing little to whatever point you are trying to make.

What is occurring in Afghanistan is bad, power-hungry people manipulating ignorant people to use violence as a method of control.  The dolt Jones burning or not burning the Koran has little real impact on Afghani society.  It’s not like Afghanistan was a flowering utopia right up until last week.  Westerners allowing or promoting the excuse that anything some moron in Gainesville, Florida does in anyway justifies or excuses nihilistic attacks on fellow Muslims are in fact contributing to the problem.

The problem is not one of understanding, or lack of multi-cultural sensitivity.  The problem is assigning equivalency to the burning of a stack of paper and butchering ones neighbors to spite some crank halfway across the world.

Those in power and who benefit from the subjugation of people in broken and failed societies have always and will probably continue to assign blame to some distant bête noire as a way of distracting from their own failure to meet their respective society’s needs.

A quick aside; Jones has figured out that this is a self-promotion gold mine and all he needs for that to be successful is to get people like you up in a lather condemning him.  The Mullahs know that the failure of Western society to respond with unanimous condemnation and subsequent effete naval gazing about the possible culpability of post-colonial Western, 1st Worlder, oil addicted, non-understanding-of-my-cultural-need-to-beat-our-daughters-to-death-for-being-raped plays right into their victims-of-the-Great-Satan narrative on the homefront.  You’ve been played by both sides and don’t even know it.

My only reaction to this story was: goodness graaacious, nutjobbery aboundeth.

33: Narrator engaged in an ad hominem attack.

46: If you can’t tell the difference between a comment directed at an argument, and an ad hominem attack…

Gratuitous verbal abuse (cf. “you’re the dumbest person of all time”; “you guys are acting like dickheads”) =/= ad homimen attacks

MCQ #47, I simply don’t see a substantial difference (in a forum like this) between calling a person dumb without explanation and calling an argument dumb without explanation. Both responses are brick walls.

To put it another way, my mocking replies have precisely nothing to do with my ability to “tell the difference” between a comment directed at an argument and an ad hominem attack. (Two interesting points in addition here. You brought up the ability of narrator and my own ability in your response. Rather than addressing our statements directly you brought up elements of our character or behavior, which is interesting precisely because you are raising the spectre of ad hominem as something presumably bad, as an excuse to disengage from the conversation. Second, I suppose you might think that by saying narrator and I are “acting” like dickheads you are exonerated from the charge of ad hominem because you didn’t say we are dickheads. OK, that’s an interesting rhetorical distinction to make. But the practical outcome is essentially equal, thus you forfeit any moral or reasoned high ground in this discussion in my view.)

All this is to say the narrator brought a substantive post to the table and was rebuffed with a substance-less reply (now the iphone is blamed for that. How about waiting to reply until you’re willing to give a better answer rather than blaming the technology?) The narrator responded in kind to demonstrate the futility of such a dialog model and he was chastised for responding in kind. I pointed out that the narrator was responding in kind and that his substantive comments still awaited reply. I then added my own response to the main point of the discussion which essentially received no reply. Instead, we argue about ad hominem and overlook the potential bigotry and rash judgment manifested in the OP.

See how silly all of this is? It would probably be preferable in the future to just stick to the main points of the OP. Of course, that may be a silly hope considering that people here prefer to “burn, baby, burn.” What did I expect?

The idea that we should subjugate modern. western, democratic values (ex. free-speech) to the whims of any power hungry barbarian with an AK-47 is a non-thinking response.

Is this supposed to be a response to something I have said? Or something the narrator has said? Or something someone else said? I haven’t seen anyone here claim that we ought to “subjugate modern. [sic] western, democratic values (ex. free-speech) to the whims of any power hungry barbarian with an AK-47.” Maybe I missed it, I admit, so if you can direct me to where such a statement was made I would appreciate it and try to engage that particular argument. I certainly don’t believe it comes close to representing a proposition I would make in this discussion. This is a round-about way of saying you are responding to a straw man, or a straw woman, whichever you please.

Should we burn baby burn? I t d o e s n o t m a t t e r. It has nothing to do with the root cause of the failed society in Afghanistan.

I agree with you that root causes need to be investigated and handled as best they can be, that simply not burning Qur’ans does little or nothing in itself to help improve the Afghan world (improve in terms of decreasing violence and promoting pluralism, equality, or whatever western value you think would help). But I don’t agree that Qur’an burning in the US doesn’t matter. It does matter, to the tune of multiple lost lives as an indirect result. That’s the crux of the issue, then, in my view. How to best address the root causes while taking into consideration some of the seemingly peripheral issues like Qur’an burning. I can think of many reasons why we shouldn’t burn copies of the Qur’an. But I can’t think of a compelling reason why I should burn a Qur’an (considering that decreasing violence and increasing understanding is my end goal). I can think of ways to try and decrease violence and increase understanding while still appreciating my first amendment rights that do ot involve burning a book of scripture. I do not think it takes much imagination to come up with some possibilities in that regard. So far no one here has provided a single compelling reason to burn a Qur’an. Should I burn one in order to stick it to radicals and prove a rhetorical point knowing that lives may be lost? Is burning what they consider to be sacred really the best (hell, in this case according to everyone on this discussion the onlyway) to teach Afghhanis the virtues of western society? There are no better alternatives? The narrator brought up utilitarianism and libertarianism as a few potential sources of thought on the question of Qur’an burning. There are other approaches to such questions. These might provide interesting frameworks through which we might consider this issue, but instead we’re shooting from the hip and tossing out slogans.

So far, no one here has proposed anything resembling a coherent and consistent position justifying the burning of a Qur’an. DKL’s post basically looks like chest-thumping arrogance, we’ll not submit to them, but we will force submission by burning their sacred books. (“Their” being confined to a small sub-segment of the overall global Muslim population. Note we haven’t really considered them a part of the picture although they clearly deserve consideration). Again, this is answering violence with violence while hiding behind the first amendment of the US constitution. It surely doesn’t take into consideration Paul’s discussion of offending a brother, it certainly doesn’t take into consideration the teachings of Jesus Christ as recorded in the sermon on the mount. Instead, it seems to be based on some sort of “West is Best” flag-waving mentality.

As a Mormon, I want to affirm as plainly as possible in conclusion that I completely disagree with DKL’s post and I find it simple-minded and morally abhorrent. I also disagree with the responses of most of the other people in this thread. I also want to point out that DKL’s position in no way represents any of the Mormons I know on a personal basis as far as I am aware. Were I to encounter this line of thought from another member of the Church I would disagree with them and make an effort to help them change their mind. Something like this would not be discussed in a church meeting or over the pulpit, and I would not expect many Mormons to take this particular position, which again, I view as simplistic, uncreative, uncaring, short-sighted, and pragmatically flawed.

The people who are objecting to this post are missing a few key points.

First of all, when folks in Afghanistan kill other people because Americans practice their God-given freedoms, the problem isn’t in America. It’s in Afghanistan. God gave them the same freedoms that He gave us, but they’re blind to them. This isn’t a time for introspection about how much nicer or more accommodating we can be. It isn’t about us. It’s about them.

Second, the anti-western violence we’ve seen in Afghanistan has become overwhelmingly common in the Muslim 3rd world, and it has remained fairly rare elsewhere. If we lay this problem at the feet of ignorance, that doesn’t change anything: Islam is still the factor that is common to all of this ignorance. No matter how you cut it, the unacceptable behavior of 3rd world Muslims makes Islam a crappy religion. Saying this doesn’t make one a religious bigot, and it doesn’t make all Muslims bad people. Many folks think that Mormonism is a crappy religion, even though they have a fairly high opinion of the individual Mormons they know.

Third, this has nothing to do with whether or how much we care about Muslims.

Fourth, our Western values and Western freedoms are superior to those of the Muslim 3rd world. Period. We must lose no opportunity to say so. (It’s truly astonishing (a) how few people are willing to assert this, and (b) how many people will attack folks who are willing to assert this.)

What, bhodges, should we do? Disagree with DKL just because? I totally agree with him. I think you’re wrong to condemn his point of view. There’s nothing racist here, there’s good common sense. Screw political correctness. I tell you this–no Muslims in Afganistan are second guessing their decision to hate America.

annegb: I never said a thing about racism or political correctness.

Third, this has nothing to do with whether or how much we care about Muslims.

Actually, it seems to me it has everything to do with that, but your comment is particularly enlightening as to how you’ve arrived at your own violent conclusion. Since you appear unwilling or incapable of actually responding to the points I’ve made and the questions I’ve raised it is probably best for me to walk away. As a sidenote, I should thank you not for using ethnic slurs in this post, as you’ve done on your Facebook page in the past (which seems to have entirely disappeared. I wonder why.) .

My overall objective here is to let people know that as a Mormon I believe DKL’s post is an aberration, not representative of Mormonism. I’ve done that, I can move on. I’m happy to see Tim, Loyd, and a few other people making great points in the discussion as well. Thanks to them.

Oh, don’t go anywhere, I’ll go back and read your post more carefully. Just a minute.

Chris H, sometimes you can be such a putz.

Sorry it took me so long to get back, been looking up medical stuff. bhodges, I think you’re agreeing with DKL. Aren’t you saying the reverend is wrong, but has the right to be wrong?

“it seems it would do us all well to try and better understand the mentality and perspective of those we are judging as violent and extreme. It is hard for me to justify the sort of violence we see in reaction to Qur’an burning, and my American sense of freedom of speech tells me such reactions ought not to be anyway. At the same time, I appreciate Last Lemmings’s wise use of Paul and his milk/meat approach.” I find this confusing and sort of contradictory. What are you saying exactly here?

“Is anyone here seriously saying that the best way to deal with Muslim extremists and violence is to flagrantly violate their taboos to somehow force them to change their minds and hearts? It seems that is the only solution offered here. (In addition to other points like bbell’s tu quoque argument, as if that solved the moral dilemma). Because that is the impression I am getting from some of the posters here. We can either burn Qur’an’s to teach those ignorant radicals or else we are weak-kneed simpering fools.”
I go with Dnesh DSouza on this. He says we have to utterly defeat them or they will kill us. It won’t be that we’re embarrassed to be weak-kneed simpering fools, it will be that the Afgans will think we are. And behave accordingly. Force is the only thing they understand.

Thomas, great poem. I’m going to use it often in the future.

Mac #52, Totally agree.

Bhodges, you’re right, I apologize. I think the objections are to DKL’s “burn, baby, burn.” But that was just for effect. He doesn’t believe we should burn the Koran, but if somebody wants to, it’s a free country and if we don’t let this freak express his freedom of speech, no matter how much we all wish he wouldn’t, because a bunch of Muslim whackos start shooting EACH OTHER over it, what good are we as a free country? Now you can bring in racism.

I’ve been speaking in hyperbole to make a point. I assume DKL was in parts of his post as well. That preacher is going to pay for the contention he’s sowing. But that’s not on us. Those (admittedly minority) crazy Afgans who reacted so badly—their behavior is not us, either. The beauty of choice is that those with bad consequences are allowed just as much as the opposite.

Isn’t it kind of like saying “I don’t agree with what you’re saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?” Isn’t that what makes us great? I’m not saying “good on you, weird reverend guy, you go.” I’m saying, “how crazy is it to shoot my neighbors because the guy in the next subdivision insults me?”

“Chris H, sometimes you can be such a putz.”

Thank you.

“I am going to have to agree with anngb here. While BHodges obviously could use all the assistance he can get, you haven’t participated in the discussion and just show up to call things a cesspool?”

BHodges is a young optimist. I know better.

A middle-finger to you all.

If I’m not mistaken, there seems to be an accusation that this post encourages burning the Koran, that we should do it, given the opportunity and appropriate emotional state.

It seems to me that the post is more extolling the virtues of the 1st amendment and freedom than it is the actual act of burning the Koran, which the author says was done by a despicable individual. I get the feeling the author feels that burning flags or any religious material is an act generally done by a despicable person.

Hooray for freedom and the ability to burn whatever! Boo idiots!

Hooray America!