The American Taliban.

You gotta love um!

Accusing Petraeus of double standards is idiotic, unless you’re sitting on evidence he “…pissed on the Qu’ran in Gitmo and ripped up its pages in Abu Ghraib” (technically, wasn’t the former allegation was that pages from the Qu’ran were flushed down a toilet by interrogators at Camp Delta?) or sanctioned these actions – which I somehow doubt…

In the midst of all this utter lunacy, can we at least acknowledge the irony of a church called the “Dove World Outreach Centre” doing something like this.

Logic and reason are the first casualties of fundamentalism – I’m just surprised it has taken so long for the bible bashers to recreate their infamous Beatles purges
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfMmbXwH9xQ

I think there’s more than enough derision to go round for all of these knobbers, whatever their religion. Yet still, I can’t help thinking that blowing up tens of thousands of innocent people in their houses or workplaces for no sane reason probably annoys both sides lots more than burning holy books or flags.

I mean, sure, a gaggle of snake-handling morons burning some books may upset twitchy Muslims the world* over; their no-dick counterparts setting Ol’ Glory ablaze in Islamabad may rile up the rednecks, but neither strike me as being quite as inflammatory as blowing up a load of commuters with nailbombs or smashing fuck out of men, women and children with predator missiles.

Shorter – we are perhaps getting the cart before the horse here with this whole (x) burning issue..

*Whenever I see one of these enraged protests, be it in Manhattan or Mosul, I can’t help thinking – who the hell has time to go protesting at eleven o’clock on a Wednesday morning? That thought’s usually followed by the uncharacteristically Tory Get a job, you bunch of tits.

there are a lot of good art galleries in NYC too

“attracting the same degree of global coverage that was accorded to Westboro Baptist Church’s pickets of funerals of the fags and dead soldiers it believes God hates.”

Actually, this group of nuts are Phelps supporters – from the “church” blog:
“In Support of Westboro Baptist”
http://tinyurl.com/33j5t4f

I don’t see as burning is necessarily desecration. That’s why I’m going to burn one of my favourite books on Saturday. PLUG

I think the best thing the muslims who will be offended can do is remember this is the same nation that burned the harry potter books, and if im not mistaken a big pile of dixie sister CDs.

The whole things is pathetic

There are obvious fascist connotations to book burning as well as a strong religious tradition – but it’s a form of expression and I can’t see a justification for banning it.

I’d like to go into cryonic suspension while all the religious nutjobs sort out their differences. Unfortunately I don’t have that option and I’m not sure there would be much of the Earth left when they’ve finished.

Has anyone yet come up with the idea of transporting all religious nutjobs to a remote island, arming them with a selection of weapons and filming the resulting carnage?

Like ‘Battle Royale’ only with more scriptural references (and archaic cuss words)…

The survivor / winner gets the comfort of knowing that God was on their side all along.

Has news about the financial sponsorship of Dove World Outreach Centre surfaced yet?

Hasn’t this been given like way too much oxygen?

Agree with Dick the Prick – the Dove World Outreach Centre (sic) has 50 members FFS. I think my local darts league has more… this is a ridiculous action by a tiny tiny tiny amount of people and it’s been blown wayyy out of proportion. And yes commenting on this article is counter-productive to my point, but still.

@Mr S Pill – on our BBC local news Prince Charles has been over and I shit you not but their headline was ‘Prince Charles tries some local cheese’ – but a few thousand folk turned up and the kiddies all had flags and the scheme he was visiting is pretty cool. But…it ain’t news, it just isn’t. Yet some numbnuts (who had a gun on his desk!!) pastor is a wanker (again, not news) is blasted all over international teevee stations. This is media whoring, churnalism, navel gazing drivel.

I thought the Coulson story was bad enough but this is off the Richter.

@Dick the Prick

Well, it is still the silly season. Just about.

Though I suspect the Coulson story will go on for some more months yet, and to be fair I think it should – if there is collusion between the Met and News International then we need to know, and if there is a criminal working for the PM on taxpayers’ cash then even more so.

The architect of this madcap scheme, a scheme that might yet endanger aid workers in dangerous regions, looks uncannily like an ex-roadie from a mid-west heavy metal band
http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2010/09/08/alg_koran_terry-jones.jpg

We’re all doomed, I tell ye?

@11 “Has anyone yet come up with the idea of transporting all religious nutjobs to a remote island, arming them with a selection of weapons and filming the resulting carnage?”

I’m all for that. Basically, anyone who’s stupid enough to think it’s a good idea to burn books in order to offend people and anyone who’s stupid enough to actually be offended by it, give them an island, a reasonable selection of sharpened objects and let them get on with it.

“this is a ridiculous action by a tiny tiny tiny amount of people and it’s been blown wayyy out of proportion.”

Meh. Seems like it’s designed to do that. I could create a picture of Hitler out of a montage of prominent Christians/Muslims/Hindus/socialists/capitalists or anyone else you like. If I managed to generate enough coverage to get it to page 20 in a national newspaper, I guarantee someone would be threatening to kill someone else over it within the week.

He’s going to burn a couple of dozen korans. It doesn’t look good.
I think they’ll have to send in the SWAT team to rescue the books before saturday.

Compare what happened to the Dixie Chicks, a country group, in the Land of the Free when they dared to criticise President GW Bush and the invasion of Iraq:

Songs of the top-selling American country band Dixie Chicks have been banned on country radio stations, and ticket sales are reportedly way off in southern US cities after they recorded a new single called ‘Not Ready To Make Nice’, and named their new tour ‘Accidents and Accusations’. . .
http://www.freemuse.org/sw14092.asp

Not sure about the headline.

Desecration? Fine.
The Koran is a work of fiction.

Burning? Not so fine.

This, though, is good.
Well done Merkel.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11236158

“Compare what happened to the Dixie Chicks, a country group, in the Land of the Free when they dared to criticise President GW Bush and the invasion of Iraq:”

What happened was basically the same thing. They were allowed to do it, but generated hostility as a result. I’m not sure whose freedom is supposed to be being compromised here, unless you think musicians should be free to force people to play their music and buy their albums.

“This, though, is good.
Well done Merkel.”

Oh, I dunno. He had every right to draw the cartoons, but they were gratuituously antagonistic. I’m not sure he deserves an award for being a bit of a berk.

Jesus and Mo on the topic:

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2010/09/08/crass/

Newsnight hosted a debate on this last night.

Paxman was dripping wuth contempt for this man.

Called him a bone headed bigot with a bad moustache.

Good times.

‘“this is a ridiculous action by a tiny tiny tiny amount of people and it’s been blown wayyy out of proportion.”

And Salman Rushdie was a *single writer* – didn’t stop entire nations throwing a hissy-fit.

@Shatterface

True. Times like this I’m v glad I’m an atheist. Although I’ve never met anyone who’s read The Satanic Verses all the way through…

For issues such as this, good prudential advice is to follow the money.

This following news item illuminates the huge gulf between the political cultures of the liberal western democracies and authoritarian islamic states:

“Indonesia and Pakistan, two of the world’s largest Muslim countries, have urged Barack Obama to stop an American pastor burning copies of the Koran as an international campaign to put pressure on the US authorities grows in the Islamic world.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7991123/Muslim-world-pressures-Obama-to-stop-Koran-burning.html

I regard the burning of Korans as silly and histrionic, an act very likely intended to attract sponsorship income to an otherwise obscure Christian church.

The sad aspect about those calling for the book burning to be banned is that they don’t even begin to understand that what President Obama can do about it is constrained by the legal powers he has under the US Constitution.

The first amendment to the US Constitution states that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/teachers/lessonplans/iraq/billofrights_handout.pdf

In America, there is nothing unlawful according to the Constitution about the public burning of the Koran, the Bible, the Sutras of Gautama Buddha or the Analects of Confucius. There is nothing the US President can lawfully do to prevent some nuthead from engaging in a burning ceremony if that is what they are intent on doing.

“I regard the burning of Korans as silly and histrionic, an act very likely intended to attract sponsorship income to an otherwise obscure Christian church.”

Either that, or just to piss people off. Or both, of course.

“The sad aspect about those calling for the book burning to be banned is that they don’t even begin to understand that what President Obama can do about it is constrained by the legal powers he has under the US Constitution.”

Yeah. It reminds me of the calls for the Danish government to apologise over the cartoon Mohammed thing. There seemed to be a lack of understanding that democratic governments don’t actually control everything their citizens can and can’t do.

“In America, there is nothing unlawful according to the Constitution about the public burning of the Koran, the Bible, the Sutras of Gautama Buddha or the Analects of Confucius. There is nothing the US President can lawfully do to prevent some nuthead from engaging in a burning ceremony if that is what they are intent on doing.”

I doubt anyone’s arguing that he can.

The proportionate response would be to burn copies of the Turner Diaries.

‘Paxman was dripping wuth contempt for this man.

Called him a bone headed bigot with a bad moustache.’

He looks like my Fallout 3 character.

Oh, freedom is a wonderful thing. But it does irritate the totalitarians so.

Admittedly, in this case I suspect the person exercising the freedom is much closer to the totalitarians in outlook than to many of us, but that is his choice.

The thing that gets me with all the coverage is all the people asking this idiot pastor to consider the consequences of his actions. I think he has and doesn’t care – would probably welcome a religious war even. So unless the US government does the wrong thing (again) and interferes with his freedoms under some pretext of public good, we just have to live with this idiot.

Of course, we could ask why the media has made such a play of this story – in Bob B’s terms, where is the money in publicising the actions here.

“He looks like my Fallout 3 character.”

LOL, my brother’s playing that at the moment. Texts me asking things like “Is there any justification for using pistols other than the fact that they’re cool?”

“I think he has and doesn’t care – would probably welcome a religious war even.”

Don’t some Christian sects teach that the Rapture will happen after the Jews drive all the Muslims into the sea then convert to Christianity? Or something plausible like that? If you’re into that stuff, war in the Middle East sounds like the first step on the path that ends with you in paradise.

Chaise,

“Don’t some Christian sects teach that the Rapture will happen after the Jews drive all the Muslims into the sea then convert to Christianity?”

Not heard of those, but no doubt if there aren’t any yet some will spring up somewhere in the US hinterland…

On the bright side, at least it stops them targetting normal, fairly secular, activities and people instead.

@Chaise

You may be thinking of these guys: http://www.raptureready.com/ (not a spoof, alas)

“You may be thinking of these guys: http://www.raptureready.com/ (not a spoof, alas)”

That general sort of thing, yes. But are YOU ready for the truth for youth?

http://www.thetruthforyouth.com/standard/main.htm

Honestly, check it out, it’s hilarious. It’s a fountain of useful facts about the racism of evolution and the porousness of condoms… in groovy comic form!

I can’t decide who is the most idiotic…those primitives threatening to burn the koran or those primitives believing in it. Anyway, it won’t burn very well, due to being wet with the blood of the devout muslims clutching it to their chest as they follow its command to blow up unbelievers around the world.

There’s more than just defending individual liberties at stake though isn’t there?
When you’ve got half the world not understanding such things – and are ready to blow a gasket and start killing people if their sensibilities are hurt .. then maybe some pragmatism is necessary.
After the Taliban blew up the buddah statues in 2001, some militant hindus burned a quran in Delhi – which caused rioting and deaths all over the country.
http://www.hinduonnet.com/2001/04/18/stories/05182524.htm

So maybe, because of this reaction – Quran burning should be made illegal. For the greater good.

@40 – (and being slightly flippant, but not that much) but when I saw the signs outside the Dove Church I genuinely thought it was a hot-dog stand at first. This pastor dude could teach our local vicar a thing or two about the ‘new church roof’ fund he’s had going for a while – pisses on the jumble sale by miles!!

“So maybe, because of this reaction – Quran burning should be made illegal. For the greater good.”

Responding violently to someone else expressing their opinion should be illegal. Expressing said opinion shouldn’t. We shouldn’t allow ourselves to be terrorized into becoming a repressive state.

@Chaise Guevara: “I doubt anyone’s arguing that he can.”

News sources quote spokesmen from several Islamic states as calling upon President Obama to stop the burning of the Koran.

At street level in Islamic states, it’s taken for granted that the head honcho in a country can simply issue an edict to ban something and that is that. But then the orthodoxy of Islam is a prescription for a theocratic state run by a Caliph or Ayatollahs. A pluralist democracy is an alien notion promoted by unbelievers.

@Bob

Agreed – I think I actually brought your point up earlier on in this thread in discussion with someone else. What I meant was that I doubt anyone on this site is arguing otherwise.

@ Chaise Guevara

We should compare how the Taleban responded to international pleas in 2001 for the preservation of two historic giant statues of the Buddha in Afghanistan:

“In March 2001, six months before the September 11th bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City, the Taliban destroyed two ancient statues of the Buddha called Bamiyan in an attempt to cleanse the country of Afghanistan of what they perceived as Hindu heresy.”
http://archaeology.about.com/od/heritagemanagement/a/buddha.htm

Evidently, the jihadists have no respect for other faiths but demand respect for their own faith. OTOH I’m much persuaded of the Confucian ethic:

“Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you.” [Analects 12:1]

“Tzu-kung asked, ‘Is there one word which can serve as the guiding principle for conduct throughout life?’ Confucius said, ‘It is the word altruism (shu). Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you.'” [Analects 15:23]

http://www.rjbaker.com/THE%20ANALECTS.pdf

From the latest news reports on Thursday night, I’m gladdened to learn that Pastor Jones has backed off his earlier plan to burn copies of the Koran. He would have had difficulty in finding textual authority for that in the New Testament IMO.

@43

Responding violently to someone else expressing their opinion should be illegal. Expressing said opinion shouldn’t. We shouldn’t allow ourselves to be terrorized into becoming a repressive state.

That is the principled line to take – but General Petraeus was taking a more pragmatic view – and if Christians in Islamic countries were going to feel some backlash from this, it would also be grounds for acting against the guy in Florida.
Tony Blair said last night that in Britain there would be a way of stopping this happening.
Under hate speech laws or something.
I would not be a defender of free speech over the dead bodies of other people.

“We should compare how the Taleban responded to international pleas in 2001 for the preservation of two historic giant statues of the Buddha in Afghanistan”

Why? Are we looking to emulate them? Bob, this obsession you have with posting news stories about people you dislike being nasty is almost never useful. How are the Taleban’s actions in any way relevant?

“Evidently, the jihadists have no respect for other faiths but demand respect for their own faith.”

Well, that’s how fundamentalists work, yes. If they respected all faiths equally they wouldn’t be fundamentalist.

“From the latest news reports on Thursday night, I’m gladdened to learn that Pastor Jones has backed off his earlier plan to burn copies of the Koran. He would have had difficulty in finding textual authority for that in the New Testament IMO.”

I’m not sure there’s anything in either testament specifically banning it, but yes, it goes against the general ethos of the NT (although from an OT perspective the only problem with it would be the lack of human carnage). However, he’s only suspended it while waiting to find out whether his racism and terrorism-by-proxy has succeeded in fucking up other people’s harmless plans: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/10/pastor-terry-jones-quran-burning. Lets wait and see.

“That is the principled line to take – but General Petraeus was taking a more pragmatic view – and if Christians in Islamic countries were going to feel some backlash from this, it would also be grounds for acting against the guy in Florida.
Tony Blair said last night that in Britain there would be a way of stopping this happening.
Under hate speech laws or something.
I would not be a defender of free speech over the dead bodies of other people.”

Better lock up anyone who advocate war at any time ever, then.

Look, the problem with this whole idea is you’re basically telling the authorities they have the right to censor people by force if it’s for ‘the greater good’. Who defines that? I could easily argue for banning/enforcing religious worship in the name of the greater good, but I doubt you’d like to see either of those things happen.

In some cases, you have a situation where censorship would probably have a net positive effect but should still be avoided because it’s a dangerous precedent to set. This isn’t one of them. You think the Christian reaction to Jones’s censorship would be all sweetness and light?

damon,

That is the principled line to take – but General Petraeus was taking a more pragmatic view – and if Christians in Islamic countries were going to feel some backlash from this, it would also be grounds for acting against the guy in Florida.
Tony Blair said last night that in Britain there would be a way of stopping this happening.
Under hate speech laws or something.
I would not be a defender of free speech over the dead bodies of other people.

Which means we can only defend free speech when it affects us directly, which allows piecemeal totalitarian encroachment.

The point of freedom is that if you undertake an action, you have to live with the consequences. If that is the death of innocents you do not know, it is on your conscience. To say that because of a possible threat (not a clear and present danger as a direct result of the action) someone can be stopped from exercising their rights is to claim the state knows better than the individual what is right. You can make that argument fine, but you cannot then claim to protect the rights of individuals, as the state is free to make wrong or even corrupt decisions and claim that it is for the good of all. See Robert Mugabe for a prime example of this.

If the price of keeping a bunch of people who already hate the USA and the western worldview quiet is to destroy our way of life, it is hardly worth paying is it?

We prevent the EDL from having a free reign to come and go as they please.
They are policed very tightly, and riot police, horses and dogs are brought out against them before they have committed any crime.
If anyone in Britain was planning on doing this tomorow you can bet that the police would be all over them.

Imagine if the BNP had announced that they were going to do this on a hill above Blackburn or somewhere. And it had gotten some publicity. The riot police would be up there. I think they would be arrested.
I’m not saying that’s right btw. Just what would be likely.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11255366

Koran burning cancelled.

“We prevent the EDL from having a free reign to come and go as they please.
They are policed very tightly, and riot police, horses and dogs are brought out against them before they have committed any crime.
If anyone in Britain was planning on doing this tomorow you can bet that the police would be all over them.”

Yes, but the difference is that the police don’t grab everyone who has a placard and throw them in jail, which is in effect what you’re suggesting they do with Koran-burners.

“Imagine if the BNP had announced that they were going to do this on a hill above Blackburn or somewhere. And it had gotten some publicity. The riot police would be up there. I think they would be arrested.
I’m not saying that’s right btw. Just what would be likely.”

There’d have to be a charge for them to be arrested. But your last comment is correct: this is about right and wrong, not encouraging the US to adopt our specific policy on civil liberties.

There’d have to be a charge for them to be arrested.

Isn’t incitement to racial or religious hatred a catch-all enough charge?

Hope not Hate and UAF always highlight the convictions of BNPers on such charges.

“Isn’t incitement to racial or religious hatred a catch-all enough charge?”

According to my helpful Wikipedia, it isn’t. The law only covers “A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening… if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred”.

If a large number of BNP members burned Korans in public, doubtless a few would be (or could be) busted for shouting threatening things about Muslims, but that would be the crime, not the book-burning. Anyone arrested for burning a religious text could legally (and conscionably) sue.

And like I say, in any case criminalizing religious protest would be massively unethical. Whether or not it’s illegal here and now is beside the point from a moral standpoint.

…And to anticipate a possible response, you can’t just point to someone criticizing your faith or burning your holy book, say “I find that threatening” and get them done for incitement of religious hatred.

I take your points Chaise Guevara – and they are interesting too.
In practice though the police would harass such a Quran burning event I’m sure. If for no other reason than to show that the state was not complicet in such a thing.
Just like they do with the EDL. They could put them behind some fencing and surround it with riot police as they did in Stoke or somewhere, and when the frustration and pulling down of the fence started, it would be good enough reason to break the thing whole thing up. They do that already.

Btw, I thought that under Macpherson, that with anyone claiming that they had been a subject of, or witness to racism, that the police had to take that (initially at least) as being a racist incident. And investigate it as a racist incident. So anyone pointed out by people as having been in anyway racist, would have to be taken in for questioning by the police.
In theory at least.

damon,

I think the police might be smarter than to take people in for questioning on a mere accusation even of racism – they just have to show they have investigated. And it would be a stupid officer (I was going to mention a prominent candidate here, but it would probably be appreciated by Sunny if I didn’t engage in libel) who thought that burning a religious text was anything to do with race (race and religion are legally different categories I believe).