I don’t support book burning, or Quran burning, or Bible burning. But, I find the images and descriptions of violent outrage shown by Muslim communities, in reaction to Quran burning, to be much more upsetting. There have been various groups of Muslims burning things that represent the US or Christianity or Judaism, for decades, and I’ve never seen a violent mob erupt due to those actions. I would readily give my life to defend free speech, even hate speech. And I worry that our president, in apologizing for said Quran burning, might appear to be sympathetic to the violence shown by offended Muslims, and might be giving short shrift to freedom-of-speech. Where’s the political line on this? I don’t approve of Quran burning but, I strongly support, and believe it is a free speech right; the freedom to burn a Quran, or Bible or flag. It doesn’t seem to me that most international Muslim communities understand the subtlety of that position. Will that ever change? Should it?
It was my understanding they were being disposed of by the government. Is this not the case?
In my mind, that makes little difference. And I’m not trying to attack Obama, I’m just wondering aloud about the lines between freedom of speech and intolerance, and how they seem to vary between cultures.
That’s a shame, because in reality, it does. The government has powers individuals do not, and individuals have powers that government does not. This is the American way. Businesses can censor speech, government can’t. Individuals are free to express their opinions on religion, the government isn’t.
It sounds to me like you want this act to be retribution.
It goes without saying, or at least it ought to, that there’s no excuse for rioting and going insane over the destruction of books or other purported disrespect for any religious group. People often say that this is outrage drummed up by Muslim political or religious leaders or terrorist groups to further their own agendas, and that’s often credible (sometimes it’s definitely true), but that still leaves a lot of other people freaking out.
The most recent furor is not over a free speech issue. It’s over NATO soldiers burning some Qurans because they believed Afghan detainees were using the Qurans to “facilitate extremist communications,” and if there was credible evidence that was going on, I’d say that at least confiscating the books is appropriate. Burning them would be a bad move not because of the free speech issue but because of the predictable overreaction.
More broadly, yes, there is a cultural difference at work here with regard to respect for religion. The Western view generally is that you can practice your religion how you want and everybody else respects your right to do that, but you have to respect the fact that I don’t want to practice yours and might choose to disrespect the whole faith. The view of some Muslims is that it’s disrespectful to Muslims when non-Muslims don’t live by Muslim rules. That’s a problem.
So, instead of rioting due to an act of hate in burning a Quran, they’re rioting due to a clerical error. . . shrug. I’m not sure what “act” you’re talking about, but, I usually don’t support retribution.
Indeed, violent riots should be reserved for really important things, like football games.
In anycase, I’m not sure the worst of the current violence is really due to the Koran burning. Its not like the Taliban wasn’t shooting American soldiers till just now.
Out of curiosity, what is an accepted way of disposing of a Koran? Presumably sometimes they get worn out and fall apart. What do you do then if you don’t want to be disrespectful.
Of course. But there are some protests because of this specific act.
Scholars say you can bury it, erase the text, or just leave it in storage. Some say burning is OK if it’s done “ritually on mosque property.”
I don’t support rioting. They should be free to protest whatever they want. If we did something to upset someone which could have been handled differently, and apology seems appropriate. I don’t think apologizing legitimizes rioting.
Yea, but I don’t think anyone has any problems with the protests, do they? I assume the OP is against the “violence” part of the violent protests (particularly the shooting of the two American soldiers). The Taliban seems to be the main people calling for violence, and for them this is pretty obviously just one more item in a very long list of stuff they want to shoot American soldiers for.
Thanks.
Our enemies rely on the Big Lie, that we are at war with Islam. It is essential that we counter this lie at any and every opportunity. There are two important parts in reducing the number of your enemies. One is to kill the ones you have, and the other is not to make new ones.
The fact is that have the Afghan public outraged over the burning of the Quran’s undermines what the US is trying to do in Afghanistan. By apologizing, Obama is trying to minimize the fallout from the mistake and calm the Afghans’ public reaction. For him not to apologize would be to fan the flames of the controversy and play into the hands of those who are trying to portray the US as a Christian crusader that is actively hostile to Islam.
The outrage isn’t simply over Quran burning. It’s a proxy for the US invasion, occupation, and (in their minds) our attempt to destroy their culture and religion. Blaming the Quran burning for the rioting is like saying the American Revolution was about the cost of tea.
Actually that too tends to create more enemies. I’m told it’s better to sit by the riverside, and fish to pass the time 
[QUOTE=madmonk28]
The fact is that have the Afghan public outraged over the burning of the Quran’s undermines what the US is trying to do in Afghanistan. By apologizing, Obama is trying to minimize the fallout from the mistake and calm the Afghans’ public reaction. For him not to apologize would be to fan the flames of the controversy and play into the hands of those who are trying to portray the US as a Christian crusader that is actively hostile to Islam.
[/QUOTE]
Did he also apologize for those grunts who videotaped themselves pissing on Afghani corpses ? Honest question - I do not know. But if your theory is correct, it would seem he would have had to on the same grounds ; and if he did not it’d be a good indication that your theory isn’t correct.
Of course, I had to read more to understand the other angles, and the retribution aspects, but when I first read what happened, It reminded me of the christian conquistadors burning and destroying Mayan and Aztec codices in the 1540’s, because they were thought to be an influence on the Indians, who at the time were expected to convert to and honor the religion of their invaders. The conquistadors disrespected the religious beliefs of the people on the land they were in the process of conquering, while going about the business of extracting their gold.
Everybody in the administration said it was disgusting and an outrage and so forth. I don’t know if there was an apology that used that specific word.
The US has certainly apologized in the past for actions the US military has taken. Rumsfeld offered an apology for the prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib and according to teh US Army Stability Operations Manual, which I happen to have on my desk here at work:
5-49.
The manual goes on to talk about how respect for the religious and cultural beliefs of the host country is an important part of winning hearts and minds.
Extreme over-sensitivity to symbolic acts can actually be a weakness. If all I have to do is burn a book to cause my neighbor to freak out and start shooting, then all the neighborhood kids will start taking idiot delight in doing exactly that, just to taunt him.
It’s like “the N word” in race relations. If you haul off and start shooting, just because some jerk uses the word, then, yeah, he’s a jerk, but you’re worse. And it leads to the grotesque overuse of the word on certain (not to be named) web sites.
The only proper response to unacceptable speech is…speech. Condemn it. Criticize it. Disdain those who practice it. Sneer at it, laugh at it, tell your neighbors how stupid it is…
But once you cross the line to violence, you become the criminal, not the one committing the original symbolic speech.
Me too, but that’s as far as I’d agree with you on
That’s because we don’t care too much. Those religions don’t claim that god spoke the language that the original book was written in, nor do they claim the words are divine, or that the book itself is a holy symbol more than just a way to convey holiness through ideas
There is a type of people who think that apologies equal endorsement, those people are not ones that a civilized person should want to associate with. It takes nothing to give an apology and may defuse a situation that killed and may kill more people. I would say it is bad for people to be obstinate in the face of violent retribution when saying you’re sorry gives up none of the moral high ground
Ditto
Eventually that will change.
I obviously disapprove of provocative actions of this sort – after all, it is mindful of Christianity’s scorched-earth campaigns of the past. Which I doubt did anyone any good.
But I wonder, instead of going full-Monty over every Koran burning that happens, why don’t Muslims literally fuel their rage over a bunch of Bibles? That way, no one gets hurt, it becomes sort of a tit-for-tat…with the added bonus of showing how silly the whole thing is on either side.