The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Please do not burn those books

Please do not burn those books

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. 10
  11. All
Foxy, problem with these impositions on Free-Speech is that there comes a point where the considerations extend beyond domestic and trans-domestic harmony, and then limitations to the point where we would find ourselves being blackmailed into keeping silent in the fear we could hurt someone's feelings anywhere else in the world- based on, of all things, theology. Banning holy book burning comes too close to the police-state laws of WYD, and arguably many of the penalties imposed by scientists and philosophers who contradicted church teachings- including the theory of evolution.
Not to mention it puts a rather awkward situation for asserting gay rights when it is fundamentally abhorrent to the most basic values of most creeds.

Belly, quite right- though I think the demonstrations and blasphemies are both a direct result of impositions in the others' worlds (most definitely the cartoons). Which is why I'm more cemented in my point that these communities MUST broadcast their hostilities to one another in non-violent ways, to ensure these two bodies stay out of each others' hair. The less civility shown by the perpetrators is also helping the rest of the world see their true colors, instead of walking unaware into a conflict.

I wouldn't worry about the implications of an escalation of conflict even if it did happen, because it really is much easier to declare neutrality in a conflict than people realize- and ironically, thanks to the decreasing unpopularity of US conflicts, there is a greater chance of that happening. Remember Switzerland and Sweden, flanked by Allied and Axis (and sometimes Soviet) nations all at the same time managed to remain neutral.

Also, although 9/11 was more a result of Middle East policy than religion, I would point out that Theo Van Gogh's murder was entirely religious. Also, the abortion-bomber terrorists would likely have taking their attitudes from a non-secular discourse as well.
Posted by King Hazza, Sunday, 12 September 2010 10:07:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We currently have a lawyer in Brisbane smoking the pages of both the Bible and the Koran.

Most good Bibles are produced on rice paper which should make a good unfiltered cigarette compared to wood paper. Such does not worry me provided he owns the books. Many men in prison smoked bibles given to them and in the process found God by realising the truth of a text casually read and had their lives changed.

The truth is not the pages but the message that is expresed in living it's truth. It is the attitude and action that reflects the love for God and fellow man not the legalism held for religious icons.
Posted by Philo, Monday, 13 September 2010 8:19:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
KH have you thought this to the end.
If anyone is free to say what they think do what they want regardless of harming others we are doomed.
Just because you, me too, are unimpressed with radical Islam we need not behave like they do.
Smoking the Koran and Bible is a foolish self promoting act,, from a fool.
No one should commit an act that may see harm to another.
In confrontation the one who first acts with wisdom, regardless of being seen as weak is the stronger.
Posted by Belly, Monday, 13 September 2010 6:12:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would agree to an extent what you are saying Belly but the problem is the parameters in this circumstance;
Normally, I would regard acceptable parameters as spreading false information to defame someone (at least, from a position of journalistic or political stature- and this would still largely be a lawsuit issue than a crime in my opinion), and inciting violence or criminally-malicious acts, and such.

This however, doesn't fall into these things:

Instead we are discussing whether we should ban someone from performing a function that does none of the above things, nor incite violence or criminal action, nor actually correspond to hate speech, and harms nobody;
-on the grounds that it is offensive to the theological sensibilities of outside viewers, and might indirectly provoke them autonomously to violent acts.

Which although has a valid basis of preventing a domino effect of international problems, on the other hand, implies curtailing freedom of expression (in particular a form of protest) on behalf of religious fundamentalists abroad, based on a hypothetical case of violent reaction.

It would be like banning somebody from burning the flag because it might enrage some heartland patriot to start lynching people.

Or sacrificing liberty for security, at the mercy of potential retaliation from people who are opposed to us anyway.

I can guarantee that if such considerations were always enforced, our modern stance of secularism and liberty would never have occurred either, and the entire Western would would be considerably more theological than today.
Posted by King Hazza, Monday, 13 September 2010 9:45:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry bloke that is head spinning stuff.
What if the clown wanted to defecate in the street?
What if was known and got bashed because he did this idiotic thing.
Would his assailant be set free because he had rights?
I think as I have said needless confrontation is unwanted .
Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 14 September 2010 6:54:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Simple- tough luck for the idiot that crapped, meanwhile the person who bashed him will be charged with assault. Also the crapper is vandalizing public property and committing a more profound act of public indecency.

Now I know what your thinking- that I set an artificial limit to what I consider decent and indecent- which is where it becomes relative to domestic society at large (in the same way conservative Islamic nations would consider un-scarfed women and beardless men as indecent but not say, slaughtering tonight's dinner in the middle of the street- while we on the other hand would be quite the opposite).

With that in mind, I would demand my country and its standards correspond to what *I* want, and relatively to the rest of my peers; NOT limited to what I think would be acceptable for some savage extremist elsewhere so that he would not be as tempted to kill me as he normally would be.
Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 14 September 2010 2:15:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. 10
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy