Terry Jones' plan to burn the Qu'ran on September 11

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.

Terry Jones' plan to burn the Qu'ran...what opinions do you have?

He's doing the right thing! He's preaching!!!
1
10%
Maybe there is a better solution than burning books...
2
20%
He shouldn't be doing it. That is wrong.
6
60%
He's fucked...
1
10%
 
Total votes: 10
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Sat Sep 11, 2010 12:31 am

Okay, so we all agree that he has the right to burn the Koran (I assume that we can take the fire safety as a given). My next question was, should he censor himself? i.e. should he waive that right? The answer that you and Xocrates give seems to be "yes." Is that a correct assessment?

xander
Jordy...
level5
level5
Posts: 2367
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:57 pm

Postby Jordy... » Sat Sep 11, 2010 12:42 am

If there opinion is yes, then that seems completely normal. Everyone censors himselfs all the time in daily life, even though, strictly speaking we do not have too, but not doing so would have unwanted consequences for us. So, should he censor himself, a reasonable advise would be yes in my opinion.
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Sat Sep 11, 2010 12:48 am

xander wrote:My next question was, should he censor himself? i.e. should he waive that right? The answer that you and Xocrates give seems to be "yes." Is that a correct assessment?

No, it's not a correct assessment.

I don't think anyone is saying that he should relinquish his right.

Here's the thing, your point seems to be that he may be a narrow-minded bigot, but that's his right so let him.

My point is that he should not only realize that he's a narrow-minded bigot, but why that's a bad thing, and consequently stop being one. This isn't asking for his to waive his right, this is asking for him to be aware of what he's actually trying to do and, hopefully, change his mind.


I don't think you disagree that if a kid says that 2+2=5 that kid should be corrected. Yet your point seems to be that since he has freedom of speech he should keep saying that 2+2=5 and the most we can do is make fun of him behind his back.
My point is that we should point out that 2+2=4 (and why) and the kid should therefore stop saying that 2+2=5
Jordy...
level5
level5
Posts: 2367
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:57 pm

Postby Jordy... » Sat Sep 11, 2010 12:57 am

That I call narrowmindness Xocrates, just because everyone says it's 4 that kid should know it's 4? That's how you kill creativity. Dunno were I read this, maybe from ghandi or so, but if you find something strange, first examine yourself ^^. Not that ghandi was the first to say this anyway. Let him be a bigot for christ sake!
User avatar
allen
level3
level3
Posts: 279
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 8:06 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Postby allen » Sat Sep 11, 2010 1:05 am

Xocrates wrote:My point is that he should not only realize that he's a narrow-minded bigot, but why that's a bad thing, and consequently stop being one. This isn't asking for his to waive his right, this is asking for him to be aware of what he's actually trying to do and, hopefully, change his mind.


so you are saying people should attempt to change his mind?

2+2=4 is a fact. Hating a religious group is not a fact, and is not right or wrong. He doesn't see himself as a narrow-minded bigot, why would you force your views upon him like that?
User avatar
Xocrates
level5
level5
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:34 pm

Postby Xocrates » Sat Sep 11, 2010 1:15 am

allen wrote:so you are saying people should attempt to change his mind?

The key words being "should attempt", which is very different from "force him to"

allen wrote:Hating a religious group is not a fact, and is not right or wrong.

Hating a religious group is fact. What's not a fact is whether it's right or wrong. However intolerance is almost always a bad thing and therefore should be avoided.

allen wrote:He doesn't see himself as a narrow-minded bigot, why would you force your views upon him like that?

I believe I've pointed out several times that I don't want to "force" anything to anyone. If exposing my views upon a disagreeing third party is "forcing" them, then frankly what would a debate (like say, this one) be.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Sat Sep 11, 2010 1:41 am

xander wrote:Okay, so we all agree that he has the right to burn the Koran (I assume that we can take the fire safety as a given). My next question was, should he censor himself? i.e. should he waive that right? The answer that you and Xocrates give seems to be "yes." Is that a correct assessment?


I believe that where there is a right there is an associated responsibility, and that part of exercising the right to free speech responsibly is learning how to be mature in how one expresses themselves. For example, the loud mouth at a public event who is constantly bellowing obnoxious and inane remarks, and who doesn't seem to realize or care how unpleasant they are making the experience for everyone around has every right to do so (unless they are violating some rule that is agreed to as part of admission). Yet despite having the ability to do so without legal restraint, that doesn't mean that they should behave that way. I admit to there being a line which I suppose is subjective, that of when does a person's personal expression become, by nature of the location, volume, or exposure become publicly obnoxious, as opposed to at what point does the public just need to stop crying and deal with it.

So, in answer to your question, I'm in favor of self censorship for all people who demonstrate a selfish lack of maturity in how they express themselves. But I think they have every right to do so, and so while I encourage them not to (just as I'd encourage someone not to say something hurtful that they might regret later, or not to go putting pictures of themselves on the internet that they might one day regret), it's really up to them.

That being said, seeing as my own holy books get burned all the time down there, this whole affair has garnered much for sympathy for Muslims from me than it has won me over to Pastor Jone's version of Christianity.

allen wrote:He doesn't see himself as a narrow-minded bigot, why would you force your views upon him like that?


Freedom of expression is more than just allowing people to choose whether to paint with their fingers or paint with their boobies. At the heart of the American 1st Amendment is the idea that such expression should be allowed so that people can voice their concerns, criticisms, discontent, ideas, solutions, and dreams for the government, people, and nation. If one sees something in the community that they think is wrong, be it structurally or socially, speaking up about it is a civic duty.

Martin Luther King Jr. speaking up against those who's hateful bigotry had led to such division in the South wasn't him trying to "force" his views on others, it was him trying to show that something was very wrong and that there was a better way. Him saying that he had a dream that one day his kids would be judged on the content of their character and not color of their skin wasn't trying to force the racists to change their mind, but rather to inspire within people the hope of a better tomorrow, and to encourage all to forsake their prejudices and work towards that goal.

Americans have every right to speak out against burning Korans, for though they have a right to burn them, it is stupid, offensive, and it would be socially irresponsible to not say so. It doesn't force them to change their mind, it doesn't even force them to listen to the dissent, but it provides those who want to listen with an alternative, and it tells those unfamiliar with our land and people that the feelings that have motivated the burning are not shared by all.
Last edited by Feud on Sat Sep 11, 2010 1:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Jordy...
level5
level5
Posts: 2367
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:57 pm

Postby Jordy... » Sat Sep 11, 2010 1:50 am

holy books.... what else but burning fuel are they good for...? I surely wouldn't want to read them...
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Sat Sep 11, 2010 1:54 am

Jordy... wrote:holy books.... what else are they good for...?


If they are hard bound, they also make good bludgeons to use against burglars. Nothing like striking down sinners with the word of God...
Jordy...
level5
level5
Posts: 2367
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:57 pm

Postby Jordy... » Sat Sep 11, 2010 1:57 am

^^LOL, good tip, I'll remember ^^

"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

Amen
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Sat Sep 11, 2010 2:30 am

Arg. There are too many tangents and bits and bobbles in this thread for me to respond to all of them, and keep them straight.

As I see it, this is what happened: Jones announced that he was going to be an immature, bigoted asshole and burn some Korans. The press picked it up, and people were outraged. The president felt that he had to respond and did so by saying "He has a right to do so, but shouldn't." As I see it, the president is using his bully pulpit to coerce Jones into waiving his right to burn some books (and yes, coerce---the secretary of defense called Jones to talk him out of it---if that isn't coercion, I don't know what is). The president has no right to tell citizens of the US how to exercise their rights. Period.

If everyone else wants to tell Jones what to do, they are free to do so. I think that anyone who attempts to tell him what to do is an idiot, as he doesn't care---but hey, it's your life. But when the president and other powerful politicians tell you what you should or should not do, that carries weight, and, assuming that the action is legal, is entirely inappropriate.

The same goes for that proposed Islamic cultural center in Manhattan. There are a lot of politicians in office (my own Senator Reid, for instance) who have stated that the cultural center should not be built where the organizers want to build it. The politicians are using their positions to tell citizens how to exercise their constitutional rights. This is inappropriate.

I also find it inappropriate that these same politicians insist that Jones waive his rights on the grounds that some fundamentalist wackos in the Middle East will be offended and hurt American troops. Not only do I find this argument disingenuous, but it reeks of appeasement. As Americans, we are not supposed to give up our rights because someone might be offended, or because we are threatened. What is the point of declaring that we have rights if we are too scared to exercise them? This is probably where most of my anger about this particular issue comes from.

As a side note, I hate the line "He/she has the right to do that, but they shouldn't (for whatever reason)." Either a person has a right to do something, or they don't. We should not be equivocating about people's rights.

Now, I have been approaching this discussion from the perspective of the collective "we," as in "we, the people of these United States, should not be telling citizens how to exercise their rights," with the understanding that the above context about powerful people using their positions as our representatives was understood by all. I guess I was not clear enough about that.

xander
Jordy...
level5
level5
Posts: 2367
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:57 pm

Postby Jordy... » Sat Sep 11, 2010 2:38 am

I agree. But that's not the way it works anymore if you ask me.
User avatar
vanarbulax
level4
level4
Posts: 653
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 8:51 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Postby vanarbulax » Sat Sep 11, 2010 2:41 am

xander I'm with Feud and Xocrates on this one. We have every right to tell someone what they should and should not do, but they have a right not to listen or follow what we say. I don't see why dissent is a protected right but dissent about dissent isn't? I have every right to tell someone they're being a bloody nuisance or their opinions are stupid, a company boss also has that right even though they have for more weight (or coercion) to their opinion.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:41 am

vanarbulax wrote:xander I'm with Feud and Xocrates on this one. We have every right to tell someone what they should and should not do, but they have a right not to listen or follow what we say. I don't see why dissent is a protected right but dissent about dissent isn't? I have every right to tell someone they're being a bloody nuisance or their opinions are stupid, a company boss also has that right even though they have for more weight (or coercion) to their opinion.

You and I have that right. As a group, we cannot shout down opposing points of view simply because we do not like them. The PotUS does not. The official policy of the government cannot be "You have these rights, but you shouldn't exercise them." What is the point of having rights on paper if you are not supposed to take advantage of them?

xander
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:35 am

xander wrote:You and I have that right. As a group, we cannot shout down opposing points of view simply because we do not like them. The PotUS does not. The official policy of the government cannot be "You have these rights, but you shouldn't exercise them." What is the point of having rights on paper if you are not supposed to take advantage of them?


There is a difference between saying "you cannot do this," as opposed to saying "that is a really bad idea, I don't think you should do that." How else is a democratic society supposed to have open, honest, and necessary discussions about law, society, culture, and policy if groups cannot assert their views on a controversial issue? Further, I don't think that making a value judgment about the wisdom of a particular form of exercise of a right is an encouragement to not take advantage of that right, nor is it equivocating on those rights. Rather, it's an admonition to exercise those rights responsibly.

For example, were I to say to someone tomorrow "I'm going to go by an SL-8 rifle", I'd have every right to do so under the Constitution. They might say to me though, "you shouldn't do that." Might they be asking me to abandone my 2nd Amendment right? Possibly, or they might have meant it in a very different manner. They might have meant that "you really don't have the money right now, and that's not a good thing to go in debt over." Or, they might have meant, "I have had some experience with that gun, and trust me, you don't want to spend $2,000 on it." Regardless, the person isn't asking me to give up or equivocate on my right to purchase a gun, rather they are urging me to look at my situation and realize that exercising it in this form, at this time, and possibly in this place, isn't a good idea.

In the case of Pastor Jones, saying he shouldn't burn the Korans isn't asking him to give up his right to do so, nor is it asking him not to exercise his 1st Amendment rights. Rather, it's an admonition that he find a better manner of expression, that he make a wiser choice in the matter. Rights carry with them responsibility to exercise those rights in a wise and mature manner, and I see nothing wrong with saying to someone that they shouldn't do something that fails to meet that standard. They're free to still do it, they're free to not listen to what others have to say, but to not attempt to tell someone that what they are about to do is a bad idea when it most certainly is one makes you a negligent contributor (NyQuil kicking in, hope this makes sense).

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests