I wonder if the preacher douchebag could be charged with murder by proxy, or whatever the correct term is. He burned the book in the full knowledge that a disproportionate response was likely, and now 20+ people are dead as a direct result of his actions.

They still have the death penalty in Florida, don’t they?
What’s your take on a girl in a short skirt and low cut top who gets raped? Stoning or beheading?

Good people will do good things.

Bad people will do bad things.

For good people to do bad things, you need religion.

to be fair, I have seen bad people do good things because of religion too woppit – I still think it’s cobblers though

Absolutely, MTG. The idiots who actually killed the UN staff need punishing with extreme prejudice, but the idiot that kicked them all off in the first place should be too. I don’t see how the hypothetical burning of a bible and the resultant “meh” from the Christian world is relevant. It was an act he knew would draw a reaction.

How about incitement to commit murder? Abu Hamza was sent down for that. I remember some cartoonist the same, after the Mohammed bomb-hat controversy. Whatever they use, that cockwaffle in Florida needs to feel the consequences of his actions, proportional to those felt in Afghanistan.

What’s your take on a girl in a short skirt and low cut top who gets raped? Stoning or beheading?

Immediate counselling and a medical check in the first instance. Then security from the accused. A fair and balanced trial, then as much post-incident support as is required.

Odd question.

The idiots who actually killed the UN staff need punishing with extreme prejudice…

And so the cycle is perpetuated…

Good people will do good things.

Bad people will do bad things.

For good people to do bad things, you need religion.

You only have good and bad people with religion. Without it you have human behaviour.

Are you saying that good and bad in this context are exclusively religious concepts ?

And so the cycle is perpetuated…

What’s your suggestion? Invite them round for tea and cake, have group therapy sessions about acceptance and tolerance, eh? An arts and crafts workshop where they macrame 3D collages about why they feel upset?

Why would they be my suggestions? Surely they are merely an indication of your own lack of imagination?

Are you saying that good and bad in this context are exclusively religious concepts ?

Good and bad people, yes.

That’s an interesting idea.
Don’t you think it would be possible for a society to have a system of crimes and punishments without a religious basis ?

I think the fact that I made up those suggestions would indicate I have at least some kind of functioning imagination, so yeah.

Seriously, what’s your suggestion? How would this be resolved satisfactorily in your eyes?

That’s an interesting idea.
Don’t you think it would be possible for a society to have a system of crimes and punishments without a religious basis ?

I’m not sure what you mean with this question, sorry.
Can you rephrase it or make your point? Rather than asking one sentence questions.

OK, it was this that got me wondering.
“You only have good and bad people with religion. Without it you have human behaviour.“
I would consider a thief or murderer to be a “bad” person.
Any organised society will have a system of punishments to deal with “bad” people and protect “good” people.
I don’t see why this system can’t work independently of religion.

Ah, I think I understand.
The system in place is to punish robbery or murder. These are actions not people. A person is not born good or bad, they are just human.But they may commit criminal acts. If someone robbed a house they will not always a robber. They are just someone who robbed a house, and hopefully were dealt with fairly by the legal system. Unfortunately with some religions you will get “good” or “bad” people. There is never room for change or even forgiveness in some circumstances, after all it is only God that can do that. Personally I prefer a law, legal and punishment system with out religion too.

Northgate, Blackburn, today.

http://twitpic.com/4g1lru

Koran-burners thereof.

http://twitpic.com/4g1mij

Lots more on #blackburnprotests on Twitter.

I think I see where you’re coming from now too.

The civilised non religious way to deal with the attacks on the UN bases would be to find the individual criminals and punish them. This will hopefully act as a deterrent and keep people, who might otherwise turn “bad”, “good”

The religious way to deal with the book burning chap is to assume that everyone who looks a bit like him, or lives in the same country, is bad, regardless of their own personal actions.

http://twitpic.com/4g1qix

Meep.

The religious way to deal with the book burning chap is to assume that everyone who looks a bit like him, or lives in the same country, is bad, regardless of their own personal actions.

Those ghurkas they killed probably looked a bit different to a fat sweaty american fruitloop. But I guess it’s the thought that counts.

after all it is only God that can do that.

I’d love to comment, but I’ve got to “give it a rest”, apparently…

An arts and crafts workshop where they macrame 3D collages about why they feel upset?

I really like this idea. I think it could be very helpful to a vast number of people, a great form of therapy. Perhaps Woppit might like to try it too?

Trouble with yer Afghanistan, is that many people there are illiterate and woefully undereducated, hence a hell of a lot of fear, superstition and paranoia. Add in a history of people trying to invade, disputes between rival warlords, American military blowing up wedding parties and that, and you have one very volatile situation, which can and is sparked by the seemingly silliest thing. 🙁

the pastor knows exactly what he’s doing and he needs a slap but cutting peoples heads off ffs….**** idiots.

I love the way so many assume that the rampaging mob was only motivated by the burning of the Koran. I have no doubt that the mob was already fill with hate and anger towards the West long before a copy of the Koran was ever burnt. And they merely saw the incident for what it was – an attempt to insult and humiliate them.

Do some people really believe that we are universally loved in Afghanistan ? Do some people really believe that all Afghans are absolutely delighted that we go over there and bomb the crap out of their country ? Are people that naive …… can’t they figure out why we haven’t won the war in Afghanistan despite all the odds being stacked in our favour ?

Yes the incident clearly enraged a lot of Afghans, but to pretend that their hatred is only motivated by the burning of the Koran suggests a rather simplistic logic.

It’s a bit like suggesting that World War One, in which 16 million people died, happened because Austria-Hungary was enraged by the death of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife.

Or that the Football War of 1969 between El Salvador and Honduras in which 3000 people died was caused because El Salvador was enraged over a qualifying round of the 1970 FIFA World Cup.

btw neither of those two wars involved religion. Unless you want to call football a religion of course.

Evening Ernest.

Would you like to go to an arts and crafts workshop where we can macrame 3D collages about why we feel the way we do?

Anger is within all of us. Better to use that energy to create, rather than destroy. But if resources for such positive outlet are denied, unavailable to you, then that energy will inevitably manifest itself in a negative form. It’s easier to hate than create.

ernie_lynch,

They have always hated the West so no matter the amount of help offered nothing will change unless change come from themselves. Religion is merely an excuse to galvanise their ignorant masses into hysterical hate towards everything different.

Elfinsafety,

Anger is within all of us. Better to use that energy to create, rather than destroy. But if resources for such positive outlet are denied, unavailable to you, then that energy will inevitably manifest itself in a negative form. It’s easier to hate than create.

Is that an excuse?

Create than destroy? The question one needs to ask is which comes first?

So resources are denied etc … so that is an excuse to kill or to wage war on everyone different?

“It’s easier to hate than create”? I think you mean they created hate.

Hehe. I’m glad my idea has the backing of such STW luminaries as Elfin.
Seriously, I was being an arse for the sake of it.

And I don’t think anyone really believes that the murder of UN staff was initiated purely by the act of burning of a Koran by itself. That was kind of the point.
The fanaticism bred over in Afghanistan and the like seems to thrive on the idea that ALL cultures, Christian/Jewish/whatever are enemies of the Muslim. When that sort of intolerance/ignorance is taught to people with no way of knowing about how the rest of the world actually lives and perceives others, then it’s no wonder we have atrocities like this.
And I know that fanaticism of this ilk isn’t the sole reserve of Muslims. I would hazard a guess that at least some of the goings on at Abu Ghraib/Guantanamo were a result of a childhood spent learning the literal word of the Bible. As in, the bits that make it ok for you to be shitty to people who disobey the word of the Bible, as long as you appreciate that the other bits that might apply to you are taken with a pinch of salt.

EDIT: Maybe extremism is a more appropriate word than fanaticism.

Interesting quote here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12949975

The UN’s chief envoy to Afghanistan, Staffan de Mistura, blamed Friday’s violence in the northern city of Mazar-e Sharif on the Florida pastor who burnt the Koran on 20 March. “I don’t think we should be blaming any Afghan,” Mr de Mistura said. “We should be blaming the person who produced the news – the one who burned the Koran. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from offending culture, religion, traditions.”

So the UN’s chief envoy to Afghanistan does not believe that the people who actually murdered these people should be blamed.

Sure, the US pastor was a complete asshat, but for someone senior in the UN to say that it is ok to murder UN workers in revenge for unrelated person’s actions is utterly terrifying. The UN need to give him a talking to.

He’s being diplomatic.

I suspect he’ll be telling the UN mercenaries to machinegun the next rowdy looking crowd heading for a UN compound.

if you rattle a bees nest you may get stung. the pastor rattled it. Whilst I have no wish to defend those who did the murdering but if you remove the book burning you remove the murders. The pastor is clearly foolish in the extreme and has blood on his hands as , clearly do those who did it. We can argue who has the most blame but we cannot argue the events are unrelated.

The politic Staffan de Mistura:

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from offending culture, religion, traditions.”

Salman Rushdie (a man who knows a thing or two about causing offence and the consequences thereof (Salman’s ex-wife google images with safesearch content, still possibly not safe for work):

What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.

Sometimes free speech will involve offence but I am less sure that deliberatley causing offence is always defendable by citing free speech. Can i really expect to go to a heavily black area or contry shouting the n word and expect everyone to respect my right to free speech? When someone makes an intelectual point that I find odious I can tolerate it and defend it. If the sole purpose is offence [and theres eems little other point]I am less inclined to support their right to be a rude offensive asshat.

Markie – Member

The politic Staffan de Mistura:

“Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from offending culture, religion, traditions.”

In that case there is no such thing as freedom of speech since it requires self-censorship because there is a limit on how much one can say.

If freedom of speech is exactly what it is then you can say about anything and everything whether it is offensive or not.

So at the end of the day “freedom” of speech must be redefined since there is always the possibility that someone might disagree with what you say … if you are that concerned.

Freedom of speech is exactly what it is by saying whatever you like, but freedom of speech comes with responsibility and that responsibility depends on one owns personal moral or ethic.

So to blame freedom of speech just because someone says something offensive is not the problem of freedom of speech but the individual distorted views.

🙄

Who in their right mind would want to burn a heavy metal music magazine anyway? (boom boom -that old chestnut) 🙂

I wonder, if you burnt a Bible would you get the same reaction?

When I first read the title without my glasses on, I thought it said

“International Bum a Korean Day“

Imagine my disappointment upon re-reading it.