F*** me, Ray Bradbury (Burning the Quran)

[Mr. Fed]

Even in an at-will state, you can't fire someone for a legally prohibited reason.

NJTransit is a government entity, right?

If so, then I have serious doubts about whether the firing is legal. The First Amendment governs firing of public employees for their speech. It doesn't protect them from firing to nearly the same extent it protects them from lawsuits or prosecution, but I have doubts that NJTransit can justify termination for such off-duty, not-in-his-official-capacity conduct.

[Isgrimnur]

The First Amendment governs firing of public employees for their speech.

I would like to know more about this.

[Mr. Fed]

The First Amendment governs firing of public employees for their speech.

I would like to know more about this.

No with an if, or yes with a but.

[El Guapo]

I don't think he's afraid. I think he's an attention whore.

/agree

But like I said.... I'm sick and tired of walking on eggshells for Islam. Radicals know of only two tactics: threats and murder. If you back down, they win. If you oppose them, they kill whether you are Western or one of their own.

Meanwhile, the moderate muslims sit silently and let it happen. More than that, as indicated by the poll linked here, they often assume that the radicals are right even if (?) they (weakly or passively) disagree with their tactics.

I don't necessarily disagree, but how would burning Qurans help against extremist Islamist radicals? Burning Qurans is hardly targeted towards the radicals - it's the holy book of all Muslims, not just Al Qaeda.

It doesn't of course. But my issue is with the assertion by everyone from Obama, the FBI to Sarah Palin that we should somehow appease those that threaten us by pressuring the offenders NOT burn the book.

I think the argument is more this: burning the Quran isn't going to do any good, since as we've said it's not going to help in the moderate v. radicals debate in the Muslim world. But it certainly could have bad, unpredictable effects. It's not crazy to think that this could encourage anti-American protests and attacks in and around the Muslim world, and possibly interfere with our operations in Afghanistan.

Even if the Taliban and Taliban-sympathizers *shouldn't* use this as a basis for recruiting and as an incitement to further attacks, it's reasonable to think that they *will*. Given that, isn't it reasonable to encourage the guy not to burn Qurans? It's not going to help, and it could endanger the lives of at least a few American servicemen.

I guess you could call that appeasing. But it's really encouraging him not to burn Qurans not on account of what the Taliban think or would like us to do, but on account of what the Taliban and like-minded folks are likely to *do*. You can be of the "fuck what the Taliban think* mindset (as are most right-thinking people) and still take into account their likely responses. And since there's no real benefit to burning the Qurans that I can see and at least some plausible cost, it's reasonable to ask him not to do it.

[Isgrimnur]

Thanks for the information. This was not an area that I was familiar with. It sounds like he'll have decent grounds for contesting his firing, as it's not like he did it in uniform or at his place of employment. That certainly changes my thoughts on the matter of his firing, even though I still find him to be a complete tool for his actions.

[LordMortis]

Wasn't there widespread condemnation of the abortion bombings/shootings? In addition, a Christian dominated government/police force/community/city brought the offenders to justice along with roundly condemning the acts.

Maybe you don't live near large Muslim communities. There is heavy condemnation for terrorism around here. But there are also extremists here as well. Why lump them all together any more than I would Tim McVay and christiandom? Or abortion clinic bombers and all of Catholicism?

http://www.30-days.net/muslims/muslims- ... -michigan/" target="_blank

http://www.freep.com/article/20100910/N ... -bin-Laden" target="_blank

and yeah, we have a lot of Muslim nuts around here who believe they are above the law and decency but then we have lots of nuts around here who believe they are above the law and decency.

[LawBeefaroni]

Devout Muslims have burned it plenty of times.

Spoiler:

[Smoove_B]

Thanks for the information. This was not an area that I was familiar with. It sounds like he'll have decent grounds for contesting his firing, as it's not like he did it in uniform or at his place of employment. That certainly changes my thoughts on the matter of his firing, even though I still find him to be a complete tool for his actions.

First and foremost, he's an ass. I think we all agree on that.

But I also think NJT was well within their rights to fire him though at no point did he ever represent himself as an agent of the NJTA.

NJTransit is a government entity, right?

I'm not entirely sure what they're status is, though I don't think they are fully a public agency. From their website (spoiler'd because it's long):

Spoiler:

Created by the Public Transportation Act of 1979, NJ TRANSIT was established to "acquire, operate and contract for transportation service in the public interest."

In 1980, NJ TRANSIT purchased Transport of New Jersey, the State's largest private bus company at that time. Between 1981-85, the services of several other bus companies were incorporated into NJ TRANSIT Bus Operations, Inc. On January 1, 1983, a second subsidiary, NJ TRANSIT Rail Operations, Inc. was launched to assume operations of commuter rail in the State after Congress ordered Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail) to cease its passenger operations. A third subsidiary, NJ TRANSIT Mercer, Inc., was established in 1984 when the agency assumed operation of bus service in the Trenton/Mercer County area. In 1992, following a full reorganization, all three subsidiaries were unified and operations were significantly streamlined.

As stakeholders in NJ TRANSIT, State residents are represented by a seven member Board of Directors, appointed by the Governor. Four members are from the general public and three are State officials. The agency is structured to encourage broad public participation in the formation of transit policy for the State. NJ TRANSIT's board meets monthly at NJ TRANSIT headquarters in Newark. The Governor can override board actions by vetoing the board meeting's minutes.

NJ TRANSIT Corporation's Board selects an Executive Director to administer the entire agency. The Executive Director serves as President of all three subsidiaries (NJ TRANSIT Bus Operations, NJ TRANSIT Rail Operations, Inc. and NJ TRANSIT Mercer, Inc.). In addition, NJ TRANSIT employs a Chief Operating Officer to coordinate operations.

Two transit advisory committees provide the agency with additional input from the public. The North Jersey Transit Advisory Committee and the South Jersey Transit Advisory Committee are each comprised of fourteen unsalaried members. Members of the North Jersey Transit Advisory Committee serve four-year terms. Members of the South Jersey Transit Advisory Committee serve three-year terms.

As a former public official and now as someone that had to sign an ethical obligation statement for my current job, I was never under any type of illusion that my private life was 100% separate from my public one. I feel *extremely* uncomfortably that I had to sign a nebulously worded ethical obligation statement, but I understand why they made me do it.

I'm not really sure where it's all going from here but some lawyerly type from the NJ chapter of the ACLU has indicated his rights were violated and our local talk radio personalities were on fire over it this afternoon, tasking listeners with calling NJT and clogging up their phone lines.

[AWS260]

Dirty hippie stops Koran burning.

“I snuck up behind him and took his Koran,” Isom chuckles in the news report below. “He said something about burning the Koran. I was like, ‘Dude, you HAVE no Koran,’ and I took off.’”

That. Was. Awesome.

Agree...laughed out loud quite a bit at that one.

Update!

Jacob Isom—the rattail-coiffed hero who swiped a Koran from right-wing fanatics and ran—has a dream. "I want to be in High Times," he told me by telephone. Then he showed me a t-shirt screenprinted with his face.

[Enough]

I don't think he's afraid. I think he's an attention whore.

/agree

But like I said.... I'm sick and tired of walking on eggshells for Islam. Radicals know of only two tactics: threats and murder. If you back down, they win. If you oppose them, they kill whether you are Western or one of their own.

Meanwhile, the moderate muslims sit silently and let it happen. More than that, as indicated by the poll linked here, they often assume that the radicals are right even if (?) they (weakly or passively) disagree with their tactics.

Awesome. You could substitute Christianity in there and it would work just as well.

But wait Christian radicals don't threaten and murder. They don't talk about reduce middle east to glass or blow up abortion clinics or federal buildings or railroads or burn the Koran and it was so so far in our past where they beat up gays and segregated schools.

Though, I must say I do agree with you to a point. I won't walk on eggshells for Islam or Christians or Jews or any of that. I just won't hold the actions of radicals against everyone with in the same culture of religion.

Wasn't there widespread condemnation of the abortion bombings/shootings? In addition, a Christian dominated government/police force/community/city brought the offenders to justice along with roundly condemning the acts.

Here, maybe this will cheer you up:

Egypt’s majority Muslim population stuck to its word Thursday night. What had a been a promise of solidarity to the weary Coptic community, was honoured, when thousands of Muslims showed up at Coptic Christmas eve mass services in churches around the country and at candle light vigils held outside.

From the well-known to the unknown, Muslims had offered their bodies as “human shields” for last night’s mass, making a pledge to collectively fight the threat of Islamic militants and towards an Egypt free from sectarian strife.

“We either live together, or we die together,” was the sloganeering genius of Mohamed El-Sawy, a Muslim arts tycoon whose cultural centre distributed flyers at churches in Cairo Thursday night, and who has been credited with first floating the “human shield” idea.

[Arcanis]

Enough that brightened my day. It gives me a little bit more hope that there are still really good people out there.

[Grifman]

Enough that brightened my day. It gives me a little bit more hope that there are still really good people out there.

Unfortunately, there's always the other side of Islam:

The increasing radicalisation of Pakistani society was today laid bare when mainstream religious organisations applauded the murder of Salmaan Taseer, the governor of Punjab, earlier this week and his killer was showered with rose petals as he appeared in court.

Taseer was buried in his home town of Lahore. The 66-year-old was assassinated yesterday by Mumtaz Qadri, one of his police bodyguards, after he had campaigned for reform of the law on blasphemy.

Qadri appeared in court, unrepentant, where waiting lawyers threw handfuls of rose petals over him and others in the crowd slapped his back and kissed his cheek as he was led in and out amid heavy security.

While terrorist acts are generally associated with an extremist fringe, the gunning down of Taseer appeared to have significant support that reached into the heart of society.

All the big mainstream political parties strongly condemned the murder, and thousands attended funeral prayers for Taseer. However, both the large religious political parties declared that he had deserved to be killed for his views.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ja ... man-taseer" target="_blank

[Enough]

Enough that brightened my day. It gives me a little bit more hope that there are still really good people out there.

Unfortunately, there's always the other side of Religion:

I think this is the part where I say fixed that for you?

Edit: I would expect radicalized populations in war torn regions and they are important, but if Muslims are serving as human shields for Christians in Egypt that is just as newsworthy, no?

[Grifman]

Enough that brightened my day. It gives me a little bit more hope that there are still really good people out there.

Unfortunately, there's always the other side of Religion:

I think this is the part where I say fixed that for you?

Not really since in context we are talking about Islam.

That said, if you're going that route, you should say "any set of beliefs". After all, it's not just religious people that can be radicalized like this, is it?

Edit: I would expect radicalized populations in war torn regions and they are important, but if Muslims are serving as human shields for Christians in Egypt that is just as newsworthy, no?

And where did I say it was not newsworthy?

[Enough]

Enough that brightened my day. It gives me a little bit more hope that there are still really good people out there.

Unfortunately, there's always the other side of Religion:

I think this is the part where I say fixed that for you?

Not really since in context we are talking about Islam.

That said, if you're going that route, you should say "any set of beliefs". After all, it's not just religious people that can be radicalized like this, is it?

So you are saying your original point isn't unique to Islam at all? I see!

Oh and my next step is upstairs to start mixing up the margs.

[Grifman]

Enough that brightened my day. It gives me a little bit more hope that there are still really good people out there.

Unfortunately, there's always the other side of Religion:

I think this is the part where I say fixed that for you?

Not really since in context we are talking about Islam.

That said, if you're going that route, you should say "any set of beliefs". After all, it's not just religious people that can be radicalized like this, is it?

So you are saying your original point isn't unique to Islam at all? I see!

Actually it is, since I'm not aware of any other religions currently implementing blasphemy codes against religious minorities and praising the person who assassinated another person that condemned such codes. That seems to be pretty unique to Islam right now

[silverjon]

God hates fags.

[Anonymous Bosch]

God hates fags.

A repugnance of related lawyers does not a religion make.

[silverjon]

It does make a sect of religious extremists operating underneath the label of a larger religion though, unless those folks don't call themselves Christians.

[Anonymous Bosch]

It does make a sect of religious extremists operating underneath the label of a larger religion though, unless those folks don't call themselves Christians.

I am unsure what larger religion you are referring to -- according to Wikipedia, "The WBC is not affiliated with any known Baptist conventions or associations. The church describes itself as following Primitive Baptist and Calvinist principles, though mainstream Primitive Baptists reject the WBC and Phelps." And simply because Phelps and his litigious kinfolk call themselves a church and use the word "God" in their particular brand of attention-whoring, does not necessarily make them religious or Christian.

If Fred Phelps were to declare himself Lord of Undersea Pineapples, forgive me if I do not take him at his word that he actually is a porous structure with pants that have four sides of equal length.

[Arcanis]

The comparison of WBC and the Jihadists actually is pretty accurate. They are both a bunch of psychos who perform repugnant acts in the name of religion. For most of them I'm fairly confident it is more likely the religion is their cover story for behaving in such a way rather than the actual cause. For anyone on the outside they all look the same as the larger group they claim to be a part of.

[hepcat]

If Fred Phelps were to declare himself Lord of Undersea Pineapples, forgive me if I do not take him at his word that he actually is a porous structure with pants that have four sides of equal length.

[Holman]

Terry Jones, Koran burning, and religious tensions are back.

Now with dead people.

[dbt1949]

How can you reason with people like this?

[Kraken]

Why can't they just burn a bible and call it even?

I wonder if the koran burners even realize that they are playing into al qaeda's religious jihad goal. Or is holy war their goal, too?

[GreenGoo]

Why can't they just burn a bible and call it even?

This.

It's difficult to understand just how completely they surrender their reason. I mean, if a film was made where a girl fucked herself with a cross, I wouldn't expect Christians to kill random people in Hollywood. Although I might expect some insanity from them. Just not killing random people.

[Kraken]

I would guess (to answer my own question) that to a fundie Muslim, the Koran itself is a sacred object, whereas fundie Christians recognize that a bible is just paper and ink -- the Word is sacred but the vessel is not. Christians would not be happy with the insult, but neither would they murder and die over the sacrilege.

But I'm guessing. Not being a man of faith myself, the mind that would get lathered into murderous rage at the mere news of this act is completely alien to me.

[Fireball]

Most of these rioters have a connection to their religion that most of us in America can't comprehend. Particularly in Saudi Arabia, you're dealing with people who have no jobs, no prospect for any real accomplishments in their life because those opportunities don't exist there. Religion is one of the few sources of meaning they have. We, generally speaking, aren't surrounded by people whose lives are as singularly focused.

[Holman]

It's difficult to understand just how completely they surrender their reason. I mean, if a film was made where a girl fucked herself with a cross, I wouldn't expect Christians to kill random people in Hollywood. Although I might expect some insanity from them. Just not killing random people.

Reason doesn't escape history. Not too many centuries ago, Westerners thought it rational to torture people over religious arguments we can barely even parse today.

I don't know if Enlightenment can be exported, but I'm pretty sure that Koran-burning isn't the way to do it. Especially when your whole point is provocation of people already willing to kill in God's name.

[Grundbegriff]

• Koran burning (like flag burning and Serranofication) is (all else equal) fully protected behavior in the US.
• Koran burning is foolish, mischievous, and idiotic behavior, whether in the US or elsewhere.
• Those in Afghanistan or elsewhere who kill because some tool burned a Koran are wholly responsible for their own acts. The remote cause of their outrage offers nothing exculpatory for the proximate deeds they commit.
• Islam would benefit from a reformation. Socioeconomic preconditions are probably not in place to support one.

[Fireball]

• Koran burning (like flag burning and Serranofication) is (all else equal) fully protected behavior in the US.
• Koran burning is foolish, mischievous, and idiotic behavior, whether in the US or elsewhere.
• Those in Afghanistan or elsewhere who kill because some tool burned a Koran are wholly responsible for their own acts. The remote cause of their outrage offers nothing exculpatory for the proximate deeds they commit.
• Islam would benefit from a reformation. Socioeconomic preconditions are probably not in place to support one.

Agreed on all points.

[GreenGoo]

It's difficult to understand just how completely they surrender their reason. I mean, if a film was made where a girl fucked herself with a cross, I wouldn't expect Christians to kill random people in Hollywood. Although I might expect some insanity from them. Just not killing random people.

Reason doesn't escape history. Not too many centuries ago, Westerners thought it rational to torture people over religious arguments we can barely even parse today.

I don't know if Enlightenment can be exported, but I'm pretty sure that Koran-burning isn't the way to do it. Especially when your whole point is provocation of people already willing to kill in God's name.

For the record I was referring to The Exorcist with regard to the cross statement. I'm not twisted enough to think of that all by myself. Honest.

[LawBeefaroni]

2,700 civilians were killed in Afghanistan by fighting and bombings in 2010. The problem isn't a religion, it is the culture of violence (that the West did help in many ways to develop).

It's like blaming Nike when someone gets shot for their shoes. And in this case, it's like getting upset only when it's a white victim.

March 28

March 14

...

[GreenGoo]

No, there's nothing racist about it.

It's when the violence spreads outside their "culture of violence" that people stand up and notice. I wasn't even aware the UN people were white (if they were).

"We" don't pay nearly as much attention when groups are victimizing themselves as we do when they point their violence outwards.

[Defiant]

• Koran burning (like flag burning and Serranofication) is (all else equal) fully protected behavior in the US.
• Koran burning is foolish, mischievous, and idiotic behavior, whether in the US or elsewhere.
• Those in Afghanistan or elsewhere who kill because some tool burned a Koran are wholly responsible for their own acts. The remote cause of their outrage offers nothing exculpatory for the proximate deeds they commit.
• Islam would benefit from a reformation. Socioeconomic preconditions are probably not in place to support one.

Pretty much this for the most part (I have no idea regarding the last sentence). Except that I would probably replace the word "mischievous". It's way too cute of a word to use. Puppies, kittens and children are mischievous, not bigots.

[LawBeefaroni]

No, there's nothing racist about it.

It's when the violence spreads outside their "culture of violence" that people stand up and notice. I wasn't even aware the UN people were white (if they were).

"We" don't pay nearly as much attention when groups are victimizing themselves as we do when they point their violence outwards.

It didn't spread outside their culture of violence, it happened within it. Unless Mazar-i-Sharif is somehow outside. People stand up and notice because it is Westerners (a Romanian, a Swede and a Norwegian). The four Gurkha guards are not even named in news reports.

I never said it was a racist reaction, it is merely the typical Us and The Other reaction.

None of which is relevant to my main point that the cause is cultural, not religious. In the case of the UN location, the religious projests were hijacked by those looking to commit violence for political reasons. It's not about the Koran.

A bombing kills 23 and wounds 60 (3/28) but we don't hear anything about that. It's just some more Afghan on Afghan violence. But when an idiot burns a bunch of paper and a UN compound is stormed and there are 3 killed, it's is a religous war!

Who knew that two cops were killed in Kandahar yesterday? Anyone?

[GreenGoo]

No, there's nothing racist about it.

It's when the violence spreads outside their "culture of violence" that people stand up and notice. I wasn't even aware the UN people were white (if they were).

"We" don't pay nearly as much attention when groups are victimizing themselves as we do when they point their violence outwards.

It didn't spread outside their culture of violence, it happened within it.

To outsiders, was my point. The racism angle was due to the "white victim" comment. But since you meant "us" vs "them" I'll drop it as irrelevant.

In any case, looks like we're in agreement on this one.

[Grundbegriff]

2,700 civilians were killed in Afghanistan by fighting and bombings in 2010. The problem isn't a religion, it is the culture of violence (that the West did help in many ways to develop).

Do you exclude the possibility of a connection between (a) the culture of violence, and (b) the interpretation those who are violent give to their religion?

[cicobuff]

As has been pointed out, most commentators do not emphasize on the fact the terrorists hijacked what started out as peaceful demonstrations. Most discussions I see make sweeping statements and generalizations about Muslims when in actual fact a few elements committed the UN killings for political gains.

[LawBeefaroni]

2,700 civilians were killed in Afghanistan by fighting and bombings in 2010. The problem isn't a religion, it is the culture of violence (that the West did help in many ways to develop).

Do you exclude the possibility of a connection between (a) the culture of violence, and (b) the interpretation those who are violent give to their religion?

No, not at all. Religion is an excellent tool.