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

[Kraken]

Petraeus says burning the Muslim holy book could endanger American troops and citizens worldwide. ""Images of the burning of a Quran would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan — and around the world — to inflame public opinion and incite violence," Petraeus said.

Yet the Gainesville, Florida-based Dove World Outreach Center intends to burn copies of the Quran on church grounds to mark the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Can they do that on their own property? Should they be allowed to? Should they go through with it despite knowing the probable repercussions? (I think I read elsewhere that they were denied a bonfire permit, but that's not going to stop them).

My own short answers are Yes, Yes, and No, but they don't care.

Bigger question: Considering the outcry over the "ground zero mosque", are extremists successfully pushing the general public further toward a generalized cultural/religious war?

[Scuzz]

Book burning is always a good idea....................................

[Isgrimnur]

The current law in their jurisdiction has a specific rider indicating that a burn permit will not be granted for books. If they wanted to challenge the rule in court over the First Amendment protections and lack of any compelling safety reasons to have that item on file, then I would support them from a Constitutional standpoint.

If they go ahead and perform their event anyway, I hope that they are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Thoreau went to jail for his beliefs, and I would expect nothing less from these individuals.

To answer your three questions as the date approaches: No, no, and no.

They are required to follow the laws of their community and have avenues available to challenge them if they so desire. They have given the authorities adequate notice of intent to violate the law, so I expect the public servants to enforce the law as written. And while I may see book burning as protected speech, I deplore the anti-intellectual, confrontational thought processes that motivate individuals such as these to practice what I find to be a deplorable practice.

[El Guapo]

Speaking as a lawyer I'd kind of like the church to sue, since I'm curious as to what the results would be.

It's interesting because I'm guessing that the ban on book-burning is related to speech considerations - that it's related to the distastefulness of book burning rather than any particular fire safety consideration related solely to the burning of books (though that's possible - someone pointed out in another thread that proper fire safety might diminish the ritual insofar as it might prevent people from running right up and throwing books on to the fire). But at the same time it's a broad preclusion on book-burning, which (it seems to me) doesn't bar any type of speech - presumably (I would hope) it would be equally applied to burnings of books of different viewpoints.

So it's a category-of-speech restriction rather than a viewpoint restriction which (my first amendment law coming back to me) is easier to defend against a first amendment challenge.

Anyways, I'm curious how it would turn out.

[Mr. Fed]

[url=http://my.earthlink.net/article/int?gui ... 82e140de30]

Yet the Gainesville, Florida-based Dove World Outreach Center intends to burn copies of the Quran on church grounds to mark the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Can they do that on their own property? Should they be allowed to? Should they go through with it despite knowing the probable repercussions? (I think I read elsewhere that they were denied a bonfire permit, but that's not going to stop them).

1. "Can they do that on their own property?" As a matter of expression of a pungent thought, yes. As a matter of burning flammable matter, not necessarily. A content-neutral and neutrally applied limit on burning stuff (such as the town has actually imposed) is probably constitutional.

2. "Should they be allowed to?" I'm not sure how this is different from #1. Yes, as a matter of permitting pungent expressions. If starting bonfires violates a content-neutral and neutrally-applied statute, maybe not.

3. "Should they go through with it despite knowing the probable repercussions?" Should they morally? No. Book-burning is an expression of ignorance and repression, and an attack on an entire religion for the actions of some of its members is an act of loathsome prejudice and ignorance. Boo. Hiss. Unlike the Mohammed cartoon thing --- which is a specific act of defiance and protest in response to a specific prohibition -- I don't buy this as a "stand up to radical Islam." But the right response is more speech.

Bigger question: Considering the outcry over the "ground zero mosque", are extremists successfully pushing the general public further toward a generalized cultural/religious war?

Yes. Promoting a general fight between West and East, between Islam and Christianity/American nationalism, is good for four groups: terrorists, extremist leaders of Islamic countries, opinion pornstars, and domestic politicians who are willing to stoop to it. It's pointless and best and destructive at worst for everyone else.

[Mr. Fed]

Speaking as a lawyer I'd kind of like the church to sue, since I'm curious as to what the results would be.

It's interesting because I'm guessing that the ban on book-burning is related to speech considerations - that it's related to the distastefulness of book burning rather than any particular fire safety consideration related solely to the burning of books (though that's possible - someone pointed out in another thread that proper fire safety might diminish the ritual insofar as it might prevent people from running right up and throwing books on to the fire). But at the same time it's a broad preclusion on book-burning, which (it seems to me) doesn't bar any type of speech - presumably (I would hope) it would be equally applied to burnings of books of different viewpoints.

So it's a category-of-speech restriction rather than a viewpoint restriction which (my first amendment law coming back to me) is easier to defend against a first amendment challenge.

Anyways, I'm curious how it would turn out.

I haven't seen the statute. I suspect that it would survive First Amendment analysis if (1) it isn't restricted just to burning books and stuff, but restricts all bonfires, and (2) the permit process is governed by specific standards, not open discretion.

[dbt1949]

Maybe lightning will strike their church first. Wouldn't that be ironic?

[LordMortis]

In short,

I don't know, yes, and I don't know but probably yes.

I suppose it depends of the repercussions. Civil disobedience and all that.

I'm all about free speech even if it's a sort of free speech paradox. Go ahead and burn books on your own time and your own dime. Whatever. Burn the US flag. Burn the Dukes of Hazard Flag. Burn a bra. Burn records. I don't give a shit. Unless you want to burn it on my lawn. And it's dog poo. Then I don't care if you're 12. You get spend some time in the pokey.

I also think it's an offensive move and I'd tell my theoretical kids not to play with their kids and I'd avoid those people like lepers. They're plain and simply not good people.

But then, I'm none too impressed with idea of appeasing extremists on the other side either. As a matter of fact fuck 'em. It's my book. If you don't want me burning it, then don't sell it to me.

[LawBeefaroni]

Dove World Outreach Center

This kind of outreach?

Armageddon Days Are Here (Again)

[Enough]

Armageddon Days Are Here (Again)

Been listening to a lot of the album lately.

[dbt1949]

I know I'm going to hell because I burned a bunch of books once. They were paperback romance novels.

[Kraken]

I know I'm going to hell because I burned a bunch of books once. They were paperback romance novels.

Booksellers used to do paperback returns by tearing off and returning just the covers because the publishers didn't want tons of unsalable books coming back. We were supposed to destroy the coverless books (stripcovers) to make sure they didn't end up at used book sales. Every month I'd bring home boxes and boxes of stripcovers. I kept a few, gave a few to friends, and gave a lot of them to the local veterans home. But even after people had their picks, there were still hundreds of disposable romance novels left.

My housemates used these leftovers as fireplace kindling. We used to do "A Reading at Random." When the fire burned low one of us would go to the book box, remove a novel, open it to a random page, and read a paragraph aloud before consigning it to the flames.

Books are just dense enough to be a passable wood substitute. Danielle Steele novels burned especially bright.

[Holman]

My housemates used these leftovers as fireplace kindling. We used to do "A Reading at Random." When the fire burned low one of us would go to the book box, remove a novel, open it to a random page, and read a paragraph aloud before consigning it to the flames.

A friend of mine produced a book called "Alien Romance" by pasting lines from romance novels into the novelization of "Alien," but that was more selective.

[Grifman]

This is:

1) Stupid
2) Disrespectful

Burning someone's holy book is unnecessarily antagonistic, if not wrong headed.

[Kraken]

Yesterday the preacher told the media that he was still praying on it. God originally told him to do this, so only God can call it off.

[hepcat]

We can't expect to effect change without holding ourselves to a higher standard than the one held by those who hate or fear us. This church is no better than the extremists they're damning.

Yesterday the preacher told the media that he was still praying on it. God originally told him to do this, so only God can call it off.

I'm guessing "God" in this case lives at the bottom of a fifth of Jack Daniels.

[Arcanis]

On the radio during my long drive yesterday I head commentary that the minister claims God is telling him to do it. While the Pope is saying he shouldn't do it and the burning the Quran only hurts people. I'm sure God's vote out weighs the Pope's but do the voices in his head really count as God?

[Brian]

I'm sure God's vote out weighs the Pope's but do the voices in his head really count as God?

To him they do.

[Holman]

God told me he *shouldn't* do it.

Just what kind of game is God playing here?

[LordMortis]

Fuck all y'all. God won't even talk to me at all. I'm gonna burn this whole mother fucker down and ain't nothing gonna stop me until God tells me to. That'll learn him not to speak up, bitch.

[wire]

The more the press feeds on this the more likely the guy will move forward with his plan. If there was zero press it would be a non-issue.

The guy admits that his "flock" has been thinning. Pulling a stunt like this will help him attract new followers. The press is his best recruiting tool.

[cheeba]

We can't expect to effect change without holding ourselves to a higher standard than the one held by those who hate or fear us. This church is no better than the extremists they're damning.

I wouldn't go that far, depending on which extremists you're talking about. They're not flying planes into buildings and they're not threatening to behead anyone over a cartoon, for instance.

Just like the mosque at ground zero, it's a douchey move, but ya gotta support their right to do it (fire permit issue aside).

[UsulofDoom]

Book burning on the rise.

Pastor to Host Halloween Bible-Burning Event

U.S.
Pastor to Host Halloween Bible-Burning Event

Published October 22, 2009
| FOXNews.com
Print Email Share Comments
Text Size A North Carolina
pastor plans to host a Halloween event at his church to burn heretical books. At the top of the list — the Bible.

Pastor Marc Grizzard claims the King James version of the Bible is the only true word of God, and that all other versions are "satanic" and "perversions" of God's word.

On Halloween night, Grizzard and the 14 members of the Amazing Grace Baptist Church will set fire to other versions of the scripture, as well as music and books by Christian authors.

“We are burning books that we believe to be Satanic,” Pastor Grizzard said.

“I believe the King James version is God’s preserved, inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God… for English-speaking people."

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2009/10/22/pa ... ing-event/" target="_blank

[Brian]

[silverjon]

Pfft, that was last year.

This year will be much better!

They don't hold much with schoolin' http://amazinggracebaptistchurchkjv.com/subpage186.html" target="_blank

[Scuzz]

Just a weird fact but I have read today that this is Tim Tebow's preacher..............

[Ralph-Wiggum]

Just a weird fact but I have read today that this is Tim Tebow's preacher..............

I seriously doubt that's true; this church is pretty small and I believe Tebow went to a more mainstream place.

[Enough]

Just a weird fact but I have read today that this is Tim Tebow's preacher..............

I seriously doubt that's true; this church is pretty small and I believe Tebow went to a more mainstream place.

It's not his church. In Florida he attends the First Baptist Church of Jacksonville. And delta smelt are an endangered species native to California. Let's just say one should never trust what they read blindly.

[craterus]

I don't know what would be more insulting... someone burning my favorite book because they know it would push a button
or
Having people scream nationwide - DON'T DO IT! He is going to FREAK OUT!


the one plus from this is that there is almost universal condemnation of this event... that is a win for the good ol' USA - right?

[silverjon]

There are approximately a buttload of churches called Amazing Grace Baptist in various states. Or at least 10-20. Only one of them appears to be that wingnutty. And they surely do pride themselves on it.

[LawBeefaroni]

“We are burning books that we believe to be Satanic,” Pastor Grizzard said.

I print a book called Satan's Satanic Satanizing Words on Paper of Satan Most Foul. I'll part with it for $500 per copy. Only 200 1st edition copies left!!! Free shipping for pastors and hair-metal bands.

Surely if you wish to burn Satanic books this is at the top of your list.

[Holman]

I plan to burn a copy of the original Christian gospels--in MANUSCRIPT--as soon as I can get the materials together. I need every Muslim on Earth to send me a dollar so that this project may become a reality.

[cheeba]

What I really don't like about this is the fear of reprisal. People aren't saying they shouldn't burn Qurans (holy shit can someone come up with a common spelling of this damn book already?) because we respect all religions and that's just not something you should do in general. No. People are saying they shouldn't burn Qurans because muslims will freak and when muslims are freaked they splode shit up. (Or that's the real reason people are speaking out against it, anyways.)

In 2009 another crazed pastor burned bibles and actually got some pretty good publicity on it. But that was NOTHING compared to the publicity this Koran business is getting. American generals and the White House didn't speak their mind about it like this Qu'ran business.

So I guess what bugs me more than the book burning is that people take a book so seriously that we have to be afraid of what they'll do if we set fire to the stupid thing.

[Kraken]

“We are burning books that we believe to be Satanic,” Pastor Grizzard said.

Tonight's news pointed out that the good pastor has never read the Quran or set foot in a mosque. I suppose that would be superfluous if you're getting your marching orders directly from the Big Guy.[/quote]

Qurans (holy shit can someone come up with a common spelling of this damn book already?)

"Koran" looks too much like "Korean", and the Q puts them in league with al Qaeda. Q words without a U come from Satan. QED.

[Jaymann]

What happens if you burn a book about global warming?

[Holman]

What I really don't like about this is the fear of reprisal. People aren't saying they shouldn't burn Qurans (holy shit can someone come up with a common spelling of this damn book already?) because we respect all religions and that's just not something you should do in general. No. People are saying they shouldn't burn Qurans because muslims will freak and when muslims are freaked they splode shit up. (Or that's the real reason people are speaking out against it, anyways.)

In 2009 another crazed pastor burned bibles and actually got some pretty good publicity on it. But that was NOTHING compared to the publicity this Koran business is getting. American generals and the White House didn't speak their mind about it like this Qu'ran business.

So I guess what bugs me more than the book burning is that people take a book so seriously that we have to be afraid of what they'll do if we set fire to the stupid thing.

It's called Hearts and Minds, and I'd wager that David Petraeus knows more about it than Terry Jones.

Jones' event puts America in a bind. Now we can choose to present one of two Americas to the world:

1) An America where people like Terry Jones are called out for being the douche bags that they are, and where they receive the condemnation of the majority,

2) An America where people like Terry Jones are given a pass because, hey, 9/11!!!!.

Simply ignoring Terry Jones is not an option. Public attention is not smart enough to do that, and you know that Al-Jazeera will send a camera crew even if CNN doesn't.

[cheeba]

It's called Hearts and Minds, and I'd wager that David Petraeus knows more about it than Terry Jones.

So we have to be extra sensitive to Islam? That's bullshit. We don't have to do that with any other religion.

Jones' event puts America in a bind. Now we can choose to present one of two Americas to the world:

1) An America where people like Terry Jones are called out for being the douche bags that they are, and where they receive the condemnation of the majority,

2) An America where people like Terry Jones are given a pass because, hey, 9/11!!!!.

He's not putting "America in a bind." He's expressing his first amendment right to be a douchebag. Condemning him is great and all (though I'm not sure I agree with public officials condemning it), but again we're being extra sensitive to Islam here because of the fear that they'll blow shit up as a result. We don't really have that fear with any other religion. That speaks volumes more about Islam's problems than our problems with book burners.

[Holman]

It's called Hearts and Minds, and I'd wager that David Petraeus knows more about it than Terry Jones.

So we have to be extra sensitive to Islam? That's bullshit. We don't have to do that with any other religion.

Jones' event puts America in a bind. Now we can choose to present one of two Americas to the world:

1) An America where people like Terry Jones are called out for being the douche bags that they are, and where they receive the condemnation of the majority,

2) An America where people like Terry Jones are given a pass because, hey, 9/11!!!!.

He's not putting "America in a bind." He's expressing his first amendment right to be a douchebag. Condemning him is great and all (though I'm not sure I agree with public officials condemning it), but again we're being extra sensitive to Islam here because of the fear that they'll blow shit up as a result. We don't really have that fear with any other religion. That speaks volumes more about Islam's problems than our problems with book burners.

Yes, Islam has huge problems. They have religious boundary issues that majority Christianity hasn't seen for three or four hundred years.

However, we are involved in a very delicate dance in which we're trying to fight a war against Islamic extremists without hopelessly alienating the rest of Islam. Since burning Korans is calculated to offend all Muslims and not just the extremists, don't sane Americans have every reason to condemn it? Or is that just being "extra sensitive?"

It comes down to which war we're in. Are we fighting terrorism, or are we fighting all of Islam? Koran-burning makes sense only one way, and I'm sure it's the one Terry Jones wants. For the rest of us, it's childish and stupid and just hands them another Abu Ghraib.

[cheeba]

However, we are involved in a very delicate dance in which we're trying to fight a war against Islamic extremists without hopelessly alienating the rest of Islam. Since burning Korans is calculated to offend all Muslims and not just the extremists, don't sane Americans have every reason to condemn it? Or is that just being "extra sensitive?"

I already said condemning is fine. It's just as fine as burning books, it's a right. Condemning it because book burning is just a douchey thing to do is just peaches in my book. But the reason this is such a big story is because when you piss off Islam, unlike every other religion on the planet, they get all uppity and riot and attack/murder people for expressing themselves freely, etc. It's like my link in my last post of the Ground Zero Mosque. The Imam is practically threatening violence if things don't go his way. It's not from him, of course, but shit will go down, he says.

It comes down to which war we're in. Are we fighting terrorism, or are we fighting all of Islam? Koran-burning makes sense only one way, and I'm sure it's the one Terry Jones wants. For the rest of us, it's childish and stupid and just hands them another Abu Ghraib.

Really if they can't see the difference between Abu Ghraib's institutionalized torture and one backwater pastor being a douchebag, then fuck them right in the ear.

[Arcanis]

Cheeba while I agree with your sentiment the problem is we can't just go to war with them because they aren't a single entity. If it were a country then fine that is easy, but it is a group spread across the entire planet, oh and they outnumber us by a lot (~6:1).

The problem when dealing with Islam is that it isn't just a religion. It is a complete dictation of a way of life. It has its own laws and punishments, it is its own political party/movement, it is absolutely everything to a significant number of people. They also make it a difficult system to leave, as leaving the faith is punishable by death. I'm sure that muslims in the west don't see that as being reasonable, but for those who that is all the ever knew it is perfectly normal.