Koran Burning -- the left feeding the left?

[Pangloss]

Intolerance and hatred is still intolerance and hatred, and if it exists, that makes it easier for the media to exploit the controversy.

 

Intolerance and hatred is not the basis for the majority's objection to the facility.

 

Of course those polls mean something special -- it means we have a lot of work to do. As you point out, the goal in 1963 was passing a law. That's not the goal here. The goal here is winning hearts and minds.

 

Do you think that goal is more easily achieved through rigid ideological posturing and the mischaracterization of those who have made the judgmental error, or through equitable discussion, mutual respect, and the finding of common ground?

[ParanoiA]

Equating murdering for Islam with all of Islam is a lack of critical thought. Very few Muslims are terrorists. The reason there is a connection is because people have abandoned rational thought and are letting emotional arguments win the day. Good thing we have laws and rights, and for this very reason.

 

And I'm not hearing an argument against that. In fact, it's almost annoying to hear pundits prefix their positions with that disclaimer.

 

They aren't indicting all of Islam, they are grossed out and insulted that anything Islamic be erected near the site where Islamic extremists killed people. They think it's wrong, the same as I think it's perverse to open a box knife factory next to that field in Pennsylvania where flight 93 went down.

 

You're making connections that don't exist.

 

In 1963, a poll of Southern Whites showed that more than 70% felt racial integration was being pushed too fast, and more than 80% did not want to see a law passed that would allow all people to be served in hotels, restaurants, etc. In 1958, 96% of white Americans were against interracial marriages.

http://acephalous.ty...arian-rule.html

http://en.wikipedia....s#United_States

 

Laws govern behavior, not thought. So if you're making an argument that ridicule and provocation would be a nifty idea to change the hearts and minds of southern whites in 1963, then I'd bet all of the money in the world against you. Granted, any disparagements aimed at them would make me smile, but they wouldn't change a single heart or mind in that crowd.

 

Thanks for helping with my point. To those southern whites, this was a big issue. In fact, it was a big issue for black folks too, wasn't it?

[swansont]

And I'm not hearing an argument against that. In fact, it's almost annoying to hear pundits prefix their positions with that disclaimer.

 

They aren't indicting all of Islam, they are grossed out and insulted that anything Islamic be erected near the site where Islamic extremists killed people. They think it's wrong, the same as I think it's perverse to open a box knife factory next to that field in Pennsylvania where flight 93 went down.

 

You're making connections that don't exist.

 

Wait, what? How is "grossed out and insulted that anything Islamic be erected near the site where Islamic extremists killed people" not an indictment of all Islam? And the objections about where the money is coming from, the fear that this will be a breeding ground for extremist views (all of this on Fox news), and I'm the one making connections that don't exist?

 

 

Laws govern behavior, not thought. So if you're making an argument that ridicule and provocation would be a nifty idea to change the hearts and minds of southern whites in 1963, then I'd bet all of the money in the world against you. Granted, any disparagements aimed at them would make me smile, but they wouldn't change a single heart or mind in that crowd.

 

Thanks for helping with my point. To those southern whites, this was a big issue. In fact, it was a big issue for black folks too, wasn't it?

 

I didn't make that argument, and the Civil Rights act was passed despite the attitudes of the south, not because they won hearts and minds, so I don't know what your point is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Vote_totals

[Pangloss]

Well the good news is that the pastor has decided to cancel "burn a Koran day". Which I suppose is the best counter-argument to my point that I can think of -- showing that sometimes media attention CAN help. (lol)

[iNow]

Intolerance and hatred is not the basis for the majority's objection to the facility.

Well, that only leaves ignorance as a reason to object to the facility, and that's not exactly a whole lot better.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well the good news is that the pastor has decided to cancel "burn a Koran day". Which I suppose is the best counter-argument to my point that I can think of -- showing that sometimes media attention CAN help. (lol)

 

I still would have preferred if they had burnt their Korans nice and quietly, without the media stirring everything up. The flag burning and chanting of "death to America" happened already, so it doesn't really matter too much that they canceled "our side". A good thing, yes, but overall it was worse for the media attention, I think. Besides, I'm sure someone else will burn a Koran on 9/11 anyways since now it will grab them the spotlight.

[ParanoiA]

And now I just read that the city plans on charging the church to protect their free speech rights:

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/fbi-urges-minister-to-call-off-koran-burning/article1701409/

 

City officials were increasing security, but wouldn't go into detail about how many extra officers will be used, saying only that they were co-ordinating with other cities and tallying expenses.

 

“We are sending a bill for services to the Dove World Outreach Center. We're tracking our costs,” said city spokesman Bob Woods. “I'm sure the cost will be substantial.”

 

I'm actually far more interested in the implications of this peripheral issue on charging people usage fees to protect their rights. What's next? Going to charge me more to protect my brand new truck from theft than my neighbor who has a used Volvo?

 

I wonder how that would have set with posterity if we charged black folks more money to cover security while they spoke out and protested during the civil rights movement. Or how about women's suffrage? Did we charge them the extra bucks needed to maintain their free speech too?

 

 

Wait, what? How is "grossed out and insulted that anything Islamic be erected near the site where Islamic extremists killed people" not an indictment of all Islam? And the objections about where the money is coming from, the fear that this will be a breeding ground for extremist views (all of this on Fox news), and I'm the one making connections that don't exist?

 

For the same reason it's not an indictment of all box knives, nor an accusation of evil doing on the part of box knives because it's disturbing to open a box knife manufacturing facility in Stonycreek Township, Pennsylvania. It's emotions provoked by symbolism. It's not rational, so I'm not sure why you keep trying to apply logic here.

 

We recently bought a car from a woman who lost her son in some kind of accident, we didn't ask. She didn't want his car, even though it appeared to be her only vehicle - again, we didn't ask. Should we have ridiculed her for it and explained how stupid it is to sell her, possibly, only transportation? Should I have pretended as if there was no valid connection to this machine and her son, and suspected her of indicting all automobiles as evil or whatnot?

 

Not a perfect example, but it explains what I tried to get across to you and others earlier in that thread. Since we're not talking about laws here, there is no imperative to force reason down anyone's throats.

 

I really thought some of you could identify with the lack of emotional connection to 9/11. I'm an Oklahoma native, and when the Oklahoma City bombing happened, you would have thought the media's prayers were answered. Each local news channel even had a little graphic of an explosion in bottom corner of the screen - Terror In The Heartland - in big scary letters, not even an hour after it happened. I was horrified watching the news and everyone around the event make it about them. It disgusted me to watch everyone seemingly enjoying the drama, to be a part of a tragedy, to make themselves part of it. I decided I just don't see things like other people. I'm just not connected to the rest of ya'.

 

 

When my mother came to visit just this last weekend, she started crying again about 9/11 when we talked about the Mosque thing. There are other people I work with as well, that still behave as if this was a personal life tragedy. I don't feel that at all, it almost feels like Oklahoma City all over again. It doesn't feel like something that happened to me at all. I don't identify with my nation group and feel the subtending affects of sorrow over the event, and it still seems like everyone is almost enjoying the tragedy - something to cry and "care" about. It's no wonder I have no issue at all with the site. I just don't care. I can look at this purely objectively, and reasonably, and conclude it's actually a cool idea.

 

No matter how self obsorbed I suspect people are, they connect with this event on a personal level, and it really is a somewhat traumatic event in their lives. Very similar to the aching mother that sold us her son's car almost a month after he was killed.

 

I don't think it's genuine, noble, insightful, enlightened, reasonable - none of it - to make believe these connections are about hatred for Islam, or ignorance because of shallow minded reasoning. It's human emotion. Irrational symbolic concession, of sorts. Letting symbols rule over one's better faculties.

 

And whether you all want to admit it or not, you do it too. You've done it too, before. You might do it again. And if you suffer another family tragedy, you're not going to be interested in anyone's rational conclusion on your emotional decisions. Like burying dead people in a comfy casket. Try explaining how ridiculous and ignorant that is, to your weeping family.

 

 

I didn't make that argument, and the Civil Rights act was passed despite the attitudes of the south, not because they won hearts and minds, so I don't know what your point is.

 

It's simple. Civil Rights was about laws; changing behavior. We don't care about emotional baggage, right or wrong, when negotiating laws and rights.

 

This Mosque is about thoughts and opinions. Behavior is already consistent with rights. This about changing the hearts and minds of people we believe are misguided and wrong. It has no impact on laws in place, governing rights. And the conservatives are quite consistent on this, oddly enough.

 

Like I said, if we're talking about laws and rights, then I don't care how much the South didn't like it. If we're talking about hearts and minds, then I do care about what the South thinks, so I can try to change what they think. I need to find out where the source of their concern really is; what their assumptions are, that enable this logic. I don't think provoking them or ridiculing them is going to make them listen to me and be open to my ideas.

[Severian]

I think the American pastor has every right to burn the Koran or any other book (mod any of real historical value etc) he sees fit. I don't know what he really wants to achieve in doing so, but I support his right to do so. However, it will mean some Muslim retaliation.

 

I think that Muslims should get over themselves and not allow pretty trivial acts upset them.

 

What is the point of reporting on this event?

 

I agree. And muslims should also be free to burn the bible if they want too.

[ajb]

And muslims should also be free to burn the bible if they want too.

 

I think most Muslims do indeed feel free to burn bibles. The problem is some of them also think it is ok to burn Christians and not just the bible. (A quick goolge will provide links to many news stories on this)

[Sisyphus]

Muslims would not be burning Bibles or Christians (at least not because they're Christian). Or at least they wouldn't be if they were actually following the Quran (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Islam#The_Qur.27an_on_Christianity). Obviously any group that includes a quarter of the world's population is going to include members who exhibit all sorts of crazy behavior, and claim to somehow speak for those 1.57 billion people. And indeed, there are a large number of American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan who believe they are there doing Christ's will, and I imagine a lot of Muslims in those places think "the Christians" ought to stop blowing up their wedding parties, and such. Of course, that is an unfair and irrational position to take.

[swansont]

I find it ironic that the protest in Pakistan involved burning an American flag, over the intolerance and disrespect connected with a plan to burn Korans. Way to lead by example, folks.

[lemur]

Violence retaliating against violence is the basic recipe for escalating conflict, but to what end? Burning/fire is ironically the best analogy for describing the process of escalating/intensifying destructive feedback-loop that results from dialogues of violence, relatiation, fear, hatred, etc. In that sense, it really makes sense that these people are using fire as almost a prayer for mutual destruction. You could almost even call these rituals "hell-summoning prayers" from a religious perspective. Then all anyone has to do to join these people in the hell of escalating destruction is react against them, hence feeding the flames of hatred, fear, and potential violence. So far, I think the best response has come from Obama who basically just pointed out that burning these books is just a destructive act that doesn't send out any message of enlightenment about anything. So hopefully this conflict will evolve from being one of mutual destruction to one of mutual enlightenment. Of course, what are the chances of that with as much will to repression going on as there is?

[ParanoiA]

So far, I think the best response has come from Obama who basically just pointed out that burning these books is just a destructive act that doesn't send out any message of enlightenment about anything. So hopefully this conflict will evolve from being one of mutual destruction to one of mutual enlightenment. Of course, what are the chances of that with as much will to repression going on as there is?

 

Yeah, I'm quite happy with how Obama has managed this whole Koran burning provocation. Hopefully he keeps up the example, because I think it's a good lead.

 

I had to turn off the radio yesterday listening to another talk show pundit going on about how Obama needs to "get a backbone" and stand up to the middle east, instead of apologizing to the world, and tell them "if you attack us, we'll bring hell to your country" and blah blah blah...how absolutely freakin' disappointing. There seems to be an element of the right that just won't mature and evolve with the rest of us; stuck on national ego.

 

It's thinking like this that can undo lessons of tactical wisdom. I teach my kids to not let people control them with anger provocation. If people can say X or Y and make you lose your cool, your mind, then they control you and can manipulate you. This immaturity I see on the right is at the very least tactically stupid. To submit to national ego is to let terrorists control us and manipulate us, since war is exactly what they want.

 

Anyway, I hope you're right about mutual enlightenment winning the day. It sure isn't looking good so far...

[lemur]

Yeah, I'm quite happy with how Obama has managed this whole Koran burning provocation. Hopefully he keeps up the example, because I think it's a good lead.

 

I had to turn off the radio yesterday listening to another talk show pundit going on about how Obama needs to "get a backbone" and stand up to the middle east, instead of apologizing to the world, and tell them "if you attack us, we'll bring hell to your country" and blah blah blah...how absolutely freakin' disappointing. There seems to be an element of the right that just won't mature and evolve with the rest of us; stuck on national ego.

 

It's thinking like this that can undo lessons of tactical wisdom. I teach my kids to not let people control them with anger provocation. If people can say X or Y and make you lose your cool, your mind, then they control you and can manipulate you. This immaturity I see on the right is at the very least tactically stupid. To submit to national ego is to let terrorists control us and manipulate us, since war is exactly what they want.

 

Anyway, I hope you're right about mutual enlightenment winning the day. It sure isn't looking good so far...

 

 

I don't think it's just national ego that is getting in the way of peace, although any form of collectivist ego always seems to lead to polarization and misrecognition. Ironically, it was actually Osama Bin Ladin who suggested that the best way to stop terrorism would be for people in the US to convert to Islam. I don't think that is really necessary, but it does strike me as odd that so many people are arguing against burning the quran but how many of those same people actually want to read it? If you look at it the other way around, i.e. if there were Muslims who were not converting to Christianity or Judaism but were in fact citing parts of the bible commonly honored by these faiths, it would make a very good impression. The same would be true for westerners citing parts of the quran they find inspiring instead of just the parts that they fear or hate. At some point, people may actually wake up and realize that you don't have to join someone's church to look for some good in their scriptures and philosophy and maybe then people will stop fighting like dogs over whether some book is holy or evil and instead start just looking for pearls of wisdom in them and stop throwing the baby out with the bath water.

 

 

[jryan]

Well, the funny thing is that the media in the West is decidedly slanted against the West. They don't dare call foul on the incredibly hypocritical approach to "peace" that Islam takes.

 

For instance, we will cover with intricate detail the world wide Muslim outrage of a Church with 50 parishioners planning to burn a Quran and nobody bothers to comment on the fact that maybe these same outraged Muslims of the world should

.

 

I bet there were more than a few Bibles in there and more than 50 Muslims in that mob.

 

But we can't draw those comparisons in Western media, apparently. And showing that the Muslims need to remove the plank from their eye before rioting and murdering because of the spec in ours is right out.

Edited September 11, 2010 by jryan

[Sisyphus]

Well, the funny thing is that the media in the West is decidedly slanted against the West. They don't dare call foul on the incredibly hypocritical approach to "peace" that Islam takes.

 

Islam is not an entity.

 

But we can't draw those comparisons in Western media, apparently.

 

Really? Because I hear that discussed in Western media all the time, usually preceded by "we're not allowed to say this."

[Mr Skeptic]

But we can't draw those comparisons in Western media, apparently.

 

Yup, the media is highly biased against common things. You hardly ever hear about the number of people who die in car accidents or from normal disease, but if someone gets hit by lightning or eaten by a shark the media is all over it.

[jryan]

Islam is treated as an entity when we are meant to care about the feelings of the Muslim community. If I am to accept that the actions of a 50 parishioner Church in Florida will be used by Muslims the world over to incite violence against random westerners and Christians that happen to be in arms reach then forgive me when I hold all of Islam responsible for the actions of it's millions of radical, violent adherents.

 

In other words, when they stop burning down churches, setting Christians to the torch for blasphemy, and generally react as strongly to the violent radicals in their own midsts as they do to the peaceful protesting radicals in the West then I will start to give a damn about what any Muslim feels about what some dope in Florida might do to a book he purchased.

[Sisyphus]

Ok, how about we change that from "any Muslim" to "any religious person." When religious people stop blowing stuff up, maybe then I'll give a damn what you have to say. Do you see how unreasonable that sounds?

[jryan]

Yup, the media is highly biased against common things. You hardly ever hear about the number of people who die in car accidents or from normal disease, but if someone gets hit by lightning or eaten by a shark the media is all over it.

 

 

Well, except that in this case they are seizing on the innocuous and reporting on the the radical response as if THAT were normal.

 

I wonder what the response would be if the dope in a church in Florida announced that he planned to burn a Quran if Iran stones Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani? Would the media be wringing it's hands in concern for his feelings? Likely not.

 

Ok, how about we change that from "any Muslim" to "any religious person." When religious people stop blowing stuff up, maybe then I'll give a damn what you have to say. Do you see how unreasonable that sounds?

 

 

Well sure! And let's not forget that 99.999% of those religious people with a hankering to blowing stuff up in the name of their religion just happen to be Muslims.

[Sisyphus]

Well sure! And let's not forget that 99.999% of those religious people with a hankering to blowing stuff up in the name of their religion just happen to be Muslims.

 

That is absolutely not true. But if it was, what would be your point? 100% of them are religious. Why should I care what a religious person thinks? Why the hell should I allow a place of worship on American soil, when religious people attacked America nine years ago today?

[swansont]

Islam is treated as an entity when we are meant to care about the feelings of the Muslim community. If I am to accept that the actions of a 50 parishioner Church in Florida will be used by Muslims the world over to incite violence against random westerners and Christians that happen to be in arms reach then forgive me when I hold all of Islam responsible for the actions of it's millions of radical, violent adherents.

 

 

I'll hold that both positions are unreasonable and untrue, thank you.

[lemur]

Ok, how about we change that from "any Muslim" to "any religious person." When religious people stop blowing stuff up, maybe then I'll give a damn what you have to say. Do you see how unreasonable that sounds?

 

What about changing it to "any terrorist," since there are those who think in terms of manipulating others with violence and fear and those who argue their reasoning in a democratic fashion? Oh wait, that just gets back to the war of democracy on terror, which has lost popularity because of its ideological fairness and clarity. Ok, back to stereotyping and associative-scapegoating.

Edited September 11, 2010 by lemur

[swansont]

 

Well sure! And let's not forget that 99.999% of those religious people with a hankering to blowing stuff up in the name of their religion just happen to be Muslims.

 

Not that I think this number came from any credible source, but if we include all forms of violent behavior, does that number still hold? Can I blame all of Christianity for occurrences of e.g. abortion clinic arson?

[jryan]

That is absolutely not true. But if it was, what would be your point? 100% of them are religious. Why should I care what a religious person thinks? Why the hell should I allow a place of worship on American soil, when religious people attacked America nine years ago today?

 

 

There were 223 reported acts of violence in the name of Islam between July 14th and September 9th that cost 1024 people their lives. Find me similar numbers for any other religion.

 

You are actually taking it one step further than me and choosing to paint all religion with what is predominantly a problem with Islam. This doesn't actually put you on the high road.

Edited September 11, 2010 by jryan