You know, the more I think about this, the more uncomfortable I am. Initially I wanted the event stopped, but doesn't stopping the event also signal to Islamist extremists that threats of violence work to shut down peaceful (rhetorically horrible, and utterly racist, but peaceful) protest?

Essentially, if it's shut down it doesn't matter. On one hand, Christian extremists win because prejudicial threats works. On the other hand, Islamic extremists win because, well, same reason really. It all comes down to violence. And already, there is violence over this case. The damage is done. It's basically now; how bad could it have gotten? And that's only if he really does not go through with it. If he does, well, we'll find out; our troops first-hand.

And if he does go through with it, I don't think I need to go into what that says.

Basically, the only thing that could have been done without serious repercussion was to never had have it brought up in the first place, sort of like Park51.

Wait, the Christians threatened violence?

Extremists and threats do not always mean violence. The fact that they are protesting against Islam (they only mentioned Park51 AFTER some specific people (Boehnor and Palin) in the Republican Party tied Qu'ran burning to Park51), through the threat of burning the Qu'ran, as far as I'm concerned, makes them extremists.

I think that burning the Muslim holy book could be construed as being violent. It's not exactly peaceful. It is blatently trying to incite hatred and some sort of reaction. If it was peaceful they wouldn't do anything directly to offend them, just stand somewhere with placards. That's my silly opinion anyway.

Eh, yeah, I guess violent would technically work by definition.

Okay, no way.

Burning a book is NOT violence. So long as the book isn't stolen it's also not illegal. You don't arrest people for making a fire out of their own books on their own property, people have every right to do that.

It neither breaks a Muslim's leg nor picks his/her pocket.

We're not advocating a return to blasphemy laws here, are we?

The priest deserved to be mocked, scorned, criticised and pitied. But he is not advocating violence yet. He's advocating a peaceful protest for all the wrong reasons. We should be acknowledging his freedom to burn the Koran, Bible, or British flag at the same time as condemning his rhetoric. We're not fascists or theocrats here. Let's not pretend burning a copy of the Koran hurts anyone.

It doesn't break a Muslim's leg etc but it certainly is blasphemy of the fouless kind to them. I think they'd considor that violent.

I enjoy the irony that in buying copies of the Koran, the priest is giving money to the Islamic community - perhaps even to build that ground zero mosque in some lond-winded coincidental way. That pleases me.

So? People say homophobic things all the time. I criticise them. I don't bomb them.

People bash agnostic atheists all the time. I criticise them. I don't bomb them.

My cat ruins my books all the time. I yell at her. I don't skin her.

Nobody has a right not to be offended, just a right not to be harmed.

Violence:

"intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force"

"vehement feeling or expression"

Yes. Burning a Qu'ran is, by definition, violence.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence

Here's an example of peaceful protest. (Semi-graphic material, I think?)

I've seen similar advertisements on TV, unsurprisingly they're quite common. In my opinion, this is less likely to cause controversy and certainly aren't giving the terrorists any advantage. In fact, at the end of the advertisement is a quote from the Qu'ran condemning terrorism. It uses the terrorist's own weapon against them, and is less likely to give them another way of recruiting youths.

The pastor could've funded something like this, or started something similar rather than be extreme. But of course, it wouldn't get as much attention and/or interest.

That's a ridiculously broad definition Nekowolf. I'm offended every time the Westboro Baptist Church goes out and makes a scene, but I defend their right to do so to the death. I also defend the right of everyone in every place that values freedom of expression to blaspheme safely without fear of violent retaliation.

Frankly, I think we're talking about violence against people. Not violence against paper. Who cares if someone tears some paper. It can't be hurt!

How far down the road of "You can't do that perfectly harmless thing because I'm offended" do we want to go?

My vote is: Not one step.

Well, then. Blame the dictionary. I didn't write definition up. Like I linked it's in the dictionary. It is, by definition, violence.

Is it the kind violence that we should outlaw? No. I never said that. I hate these fuckers, but unlike some people who would claim otherwise, I actually DO adhere to the Constitution.

Do not confuse my position on the subject, with a technical definition.

My point is that the violence is directed towards paper, not people. Sure. A violent act. In the same way slamming a door, ripping up a photo of an ex, or burning a flag is a violent act. I accept the technical definition, I just think in this context it's misleading. The Pastor hasn't threatened to do any harm to anyone.

True. HE isn't threatening anyone. But violence WILL come to people. Not through him, but rather, because of him, because of his actions.

That's the problem here, that's where the argument of Constitutionality is at, because of his actions, there could be a direct causation of violence.

The first thing that came to mind when I read the last few posts arguing whether or not burning the Qu'ran was an act of violence was that violence and abuse are both words with similar meanings. We all know and accept that there can be both physical and emotional abuse. In physical abuse a body is harmed..in emotional abuse there is no 'physical damage' but real emotional damage. Surely this is exactly the same thing - subsitute the word abuse for violence and its plain to see that burning something that is totally sacred to a group of people is 'emotional abuse'. Nothing gets broken but damage is done nonetheless.

No, an indirect cause. The blame lies with terrorists here, but they're obviously not under US jurisdiction. That fact alone shouldn't make us turn this into an attack on freedom of expression.

Look, I'm gay and I'm deeply opposed to hate speech laws. People are allowed their opinions. They're allowed to be bigots. They're allowed to burn a rainbow flag. They just can't touch me. Or hit me. Or hurt me. Nor am I allowed to hit or hurt them.

If I threaten to hurt them for homophobia, I'm to blame. Not them. I'm the one who needs to be stopped. Not them.

I'd be a hypocrite not to also take the same stance here.

But it's not indirect. It is a causation. A direct causation.

He burns Qu'rans. Middle Eastern Muslims get angry. They start protesting against the US, with such incidences as throwing rock; which has already started.

That is a direct causation by his actions. Sure, he as the right, but that does not change the fact of what I just said.

So if someone burns a rainbow flag it CAUSES me to kill them?

So you the ideal representation all people?

No. I'm illustrating a pretty general principle. It doesn't have to be me. That was pointless and irrelevant ad hominem.

If that were true, he wouldn't just be burning the Koran. His issue isn't with the paper... it's with what it represents. He can't go around burning Muslims (though he might like to), so he's burning their treasured holy book instead.

No. It wasn't pointless. Because as you do not represent humanity as a whole, as you are very distinct person, there are some who, yes, burning their holy text gives them cause for violence.

It gives them the motivation for violence. It gives them the anger for violence. You are generalizing that nobody in the world would ever do such.

You would be very wrong.

@fakepeeps

Still missing the point AND it's very presumptious to assume he longs to commit murder. He's rallying against a ideology that he thinks is evil.

He disgusts me. But he's not hurting anyone at all. Nor is he causing violence directly.

@Nekowolf


This is some extreme moral relativism going on here!

I guess we just accept FGM as well, because for some people it makes girls pure and proves their virginity?

No-one has cause for violence simply because they are offended. No-one. Not just me. No one.

I will not budge from that position because to do so is to condone horrors.

I didn't miss your point. I just don't understand it or agree with it. In fact, I think you missed mine.

I'm not assuming anything about his longing to commit murder, either. I don't know him. Hence, the word "might".

I think you're the one making assumptions here.