I’m in Repent Amarillo No Joke
September 12, 2010 5:50 PM Subscribe

"He said somethin' about burning a Qur'an I was like 'dude, you have no Qur'an...'"

The young man and a local Muslim leader.

posted by griphus (164 comments total) 19 users marked this as a favorite

Good work, son.

Apparently the Bible smokes better than the Qur'an, anyway.
posted by Jimbob at 5:59 PM on September 12, 2010 [2 favorites]

Ultimately of no consequence, but an extremely pleasant piss-in-the-eye.
posted by HotPants at 5:59 PM on September 12, 2010

Cool! Ialeays knew the skater dudes were ok!
posted by Katjusa Roquette at 6:00 PM on September 12, 2010

Well, that solved it, for now.

At some point, perhaps we need some legislation that puts burning the religious documents, books, artifacts of a religion into the same pot as any other hate crime? (Granted, I haven't thought through this concept in terms of the Constitutional ramifications.)
posted by HuronBob at 6:01 PM on September 12, 2010

"Dude, where's my Qur'an?"

(Also, that sure is one radical Islamic sympathizer.)
posted by Rhaomi at 6:06 PM on September 12, 2010 [21 favorites]

Awesome. THAT is the America which needs to reported on.

Burn Burgers, Not Books, indeed.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 6:08 PM on September 12, 2010

Friggin' Unitarians.
posted by JohnFredra at 6:09 PM on September 12, 2010 [5 favorites]

So did the skater get charged with theft?
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 6:11 PM on September 12, 2010

and the tea baggers had their own gathering today...
posted by gman at 6:12 PM on September 12, 2010 [3 favorites]

"Granted, I haven't thought through this concept in terms of the Constitutional ramifications"

Clearly.
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 6:12 PM on September 12, 2010 [32 favorites]

Rumor had it afterwards the voice of God was heard to proclaim "achievement unlocked!". He can now do the 960 double slap high ball.
posted by humanfont at 6:12 PM on September 12, 2010 [44 favorites]

This is how free speech dies.
posted by 0xdeadc0de at 6:17 PM on September 12, 2010 [1 favorite]

Ultimately of no consequence, but an extremely pleasant piss-in-the-eye.

I don't know from consequences, but I think acting out against intolerance is worthwhile in and of itself. If I ever meet that guy, I'll but him a drink. Or a toke. Whatever his pleasure is.
posted by Astro Zombie at 6:18 PM on September 12, 2010

Grisham, director of Repent Amarillo, which aims to deter promiscuity, homosexuality and non-Christian worship practices through confrontation and prayer, said he was just trying to exercise his right to free speech.

Right, and so am I:

FUCK YOU SIDEWAYS.
posted by brundlefly at 6:21 PM on September 12, 2010 [14 favorites]

At some point, perhaps we need some legislation that puts burning the religious documents, books, artifacts of a religion into the same pot as any other hate crime?

No, that's one thing we don't need.
posted by John Cohen at 6:22 PM on September 12, 2010 [44 favorites]

At some point, perhaps we need some legislation that puts burning the religious documents, books, artifacts of a religion into the same pot as any other hate crime?

Nah, that's just a step away from flag-burning laws. Meanwhile, Scientology doesn't need any more legal backing than it already gets.
posted by griphus at 6:24 PM on September 12, 2010 [5 favorites]

At some point, perhaps we need some legislation that puts burning the religious documents, books, artifacts of a religion into the same pot as any other hate crime?

Blasphemy laws would be a terrible idea. While I detest these folks completely, they still have a right to free speech. All we can do is turn our backs and deny them the oxygen of our attention and outrage.
posted by Long Way To Go at 6:29 PM on September 12, 2010 [6 favorites]

I've seen the pornstache before, and I'm pretty sure that dude is Matthew McConaughey, circa Dazed and Confused.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 6:30 PM on September 12, 2010

This is how free speech dies.

There was no Government interference, so as far as I can tell, no-one's right to free speech was abridged. His opposition exercised their right to free speech. It works both ways.
posted by kcds at 6:30 PM on September 12, 2010 [9 favorites]

I don't think I'm the only one who simultaneously thinks that it should be perfectly legal for asshats to burn Qur'ans (or flags or science textbooks) if they want to, and applauds skater dude for his actions.
posted by hattifattener at 6:31 PM on September 12, 2010 [41 favorites]

Skateboarding is not a crime. ;-)
posted by jdfan at 6:33 PM on September 12, 2010 [3 favorites]

I was hoping he was actually on a skateboard on the time when he yoinked the copy.
posted by Burhanistan at 6:34 PM on September 12, 2010 [6 favorites]

SKATEBOARD BURNING! SKATEBOARD BURNING! SKATEBOARD BURNING!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:35 PM on September 12, 2010

Ultimately of no consequence, but an extremely pleasant piss-in-the-eye.

I don't know from consequences, but I think acting out against intolerance is worthwhile in and of itself. If I ever meet that guy, I'll but him a drink. Or a toke. Whatever his pleasure is.

Most certainly! I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't the right thing to do, just that I don't think this will have any larger implications. But I sincerely view him as a model citizen for this simple act.
posted by HotPants at 6:36 PM on September 12, 2010

my first skateboard had cement wheels.
posted by clavdivs at 6:39 PM on September 12, 2010

My hero.

I was seriously fantasizing about punching Terry Jones in the face when I heard he was coming to New York.
posted by fourcheesemac at 6:40 PM on September 12, 2010 [1 favorite]

Tangential Anecdote:

I was at a local amateur radio swap-meet on Saturday, the 11th (mostly old fogeys, WWII and Nam vets) and was disappointed to see a "MUCK FUSLIMS" sign in a brand-new yellow Dodge Charger. What was even more disappointing was that nobody said anything, I suspect because they agreed. If I could have done so discreetly I would have done something to inconvenience the car.
posted by dunkadunc at 6:41 PM on September 12, 2010

It is so sad that this kind of thing is "news."

But good on that kid for stealing the book.
posted by cucumber at 6:51 PM on September 12, 2010

I was at a local amateur radio swap-meet on Saturday, the 11th (mostly old fogeys, WWII and Nam vets) and was disappointed to see a "MUCK FUSLIMS" sign in a brand-new yellow Dodge Charger. What was even more disappointing was that nobody said anything, I suspect because they agreed. If I could have done so discreetly I would have done something to inconvenience the car.

They'll be dead soon, and their particular brand of insensitivity and racism will die with them.
posted by kurosawa's pal at 6:54 PM on September 12, 2010 [5 favorites]

There was no Government interference, so as far as I can tell, no-one's right to free speech was abridged.

That doesn't follow.

Government isn't the only thing that can squelch free speech. (Not to criticize what the kid did -- just making an analytical point.)
posted by John Cohen at 6:57 PM on September 12, 2010

Texas! Fuck yeah!
posted by cmoj at 6:59 PM on September 12, 2010

> They'll be dead soon, and their particular brand of insensitivity and racism will die with them.

Yes, but a whole new generation of hate-filled young men and women is upon us, and will no doubt repeat the mistakes of their parents.
posted by Burhanistan at 6:59 PM on September 12, 2010

Look at this fucking awesome hipster!
posted by hydrophonic at 7:00 PM on September 12, 2010 [19 favorites]

Government isn't the only thing that can squelch free speech. (Not to criticize what the kid did -- just making an analytical point.)

Government is the only thing that can't squelch free speech under the Constitution.
posted by EarBucket at 7:01 PM on September 12, 2010 [8 favorites]

All kinds of awesome - but isn't it also technically theft? I'm just wondering if this jerk (the preacher, not the guy who took his Koran) might be inclined to make trouble for the skateboarder, if he can.

was disappointed to see a "MUCK FUSLIMS" sign

I've never encountered this before. Why the reversed first letters? Or was it a hand-painted sign made by a semi-literate hatemonger?
posted by AdamCSnider at 7:01 PM on September 12, 2010

At some point, perhaps we need some legislation that puts burning the religious documents, books, artifacts of a religion into the same pot as any other hate crime?

Absolutely not. People should have the right to do this, just as we have the right, nay, the responsibility, to call them out for being COMPLETE BLITHERING HATEFUL IDIOTS for doing so.

Unfortunately that's the point where most of the Qu'ran-burning types say, "YOU ARE SUPRESSIFYING MY FREE SPEECH!" And we can point out, "No, this is how it works. You can say what you like and burn what you like, and we have the freedom to point out that you're acting like a fucking asshole."

Also unfortunate is the fact that a fucking asshole burning Qu'rans gets halfway around the world before the truth puts on its boots, to mangle a metaphor. Fortunately, this guy had a skateboard.
posted by louche mustachio at 7:01 PM on September 12, 2010 [2 favorites]

So did the skater get charged with theft?

Seriously?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:03 PM on September 12, 2010

Young Jacob is probably a swell dude and I'm happy that anyone dare stand out against (let's face it, if this took place at Sather Gate rather than "Texas" it wouldn't be news) the mob.

Good for him for taking an interest. He knows nothing of, or doesn't believe in, the principles of free speech though. One day I hope he'll have the confidence to toss his own personal manifesto atop the flames and embrace uncertainty.
posted by vapidave at 7:04 PM on September 12, 2010 [2 favorites]

vapidave: " He knows nothing of, or doesn't believe in, the principles of free speech though. One day I hope he'll have the confidence to toss his own personal manifesto atop the flames and embrace uncertainty."

Eponysterical.
posted by ShawnStruck at 7:08 PM on September 12, 2010 [2 favorites]

What a bunch of attention whores, all of them.
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 7:11 PM on September 12, 2010 [1 favorite]

Government isn't the only thing that can squelch free speech. (Not to criticize what the kid did -- just making an analytical point.)

Government is the only thing that can't squelch free speech under the Constitution.

OK, you've changed the sense in which I was using "can." I didn't mean "is allowed to."

Also, if you want to get technical/literal in a way that has nothing to do with what I was talking about, the government can constitutionally squelch free speech, e.g. commercial speech, defamation...
posted by John Cohen at 7:17 PM on September 12, 2010

At some point, perhaps we need some legislation that puts burning the religious documents, books, artifacts of a religion into the same pot as any other hate crime?

Any other hate crime? "Hate crimes" are just regular crimes that with a 'penalty bonus' if the motive is to intimidate people as members of a protected class.
posted by delmoi at 7:18 PM on September 12, 2010 [3 favorites]

Sorry, I misunderstood your point. I apologize.
posted by EarBucket at 7:19 PM on September 12, 2010

We need more heroes like that guy.
posted by stoneweaver at 7:34 PM on September 12, 2010

Government isn't the only thing that can squelch free speech. (Not to criticize what the kid did -- just making an analytical point.)

True. But which is the greater expression of censoring unwanted speech -- the one who burns the book, or the one who prevents the book from burning?
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:35 PM on September 12, 2010 [4 favorites]

"So did the skater get charged with theft?

Seriously?"

Seriously. The headline is "Protester steals Quran", isn't it?
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 7:45 PM on September 12, 2010 [1 favorite]

> So did the skater get charged with theft?

Seriously?

The would-be burner got in his car and left without filing a police report, so no. Just clearing that up. You may continue snarking at each other pointlessly.
posted by Burhanistan at 7:47 PM on September 12, 2010 [1 favorite]

Is it just me or does anyone else think its ok to let people destroy their own property.
posted by MrLint at 7:51 PM on September 12, 2010 [3 favorites]

Government isn't the only thing that can squelch free speech. (Not to criticize what the kid did -- just making an analytical point.)

True. But which is the greater expression of censoring unwanted speech -- the one who burns the book, or the one who prevents the book from burning?

Burning a book is not censoring unwanted speech. It's not even a threat or symbol thereof. The goal is just to be offensive, not to censor anyone.

The problem with burning a Koran is not that this will prevent the text of the Koran from being disseminated. The problem is the effect it will have on people. I think that effect is utterly silly, just as I think it's silly to be upset at someone burning the American flag. I've thrown away books many times, and I wish no one were any more upset at Koran or Bible or flag burnings than my act of throwing away those books. I'm not censoring the books I throw away, and no one's censoring the Koran. Alas, we know from the Danish Mohammed cartoons that reasonable behavior is not something you can count on.
posted by John Cohen at 7:52 PM on September 12, 2010 [1 favorite]

I'm with you, MrLint, however pointless that may be.
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 7:52 PM on September 12, 2010

I just realized I assumed you were implying that maybe burning the book is "censoring unwanted speech." I didn't say anything about the other part of your comment: "the one who prevents the book from burning." To be clear, I absolutely think people have a First Amendment to burn any book, whether it's the Koran or the Bible or the Constitution or anything. Freedom includes freedom to do dumb things. Preventing the book from burning would be unconstitutional censorship. Burning a book is not censorship.
posted by John Cohen at 7:59 PM on September 12, 2010

Ehhhh. This has little or nothing to do with censorship. (The first amendment only applies to government actions, in case that wasn't clear.)

It has something to do with theft, yes. But I'm with Jacob here. I'd prefer spending a night in jail for petty larceny, if it means a day of headlines that are about someone fighting religious intolerance for once, instead of just another day of hordes of assholes hating on Muslims.
posted by naju at 7:59 PM on September 12, 2010 [5 favorites]

It may merely be a symbolic act, but book burning is one of the defining symbols of censorship. We burn books to express contempt for their contents, and to destroy them. It's constitutional, yes, but it is an expression of the will to censor.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:03 PM on September 12, 2010 [6 favorites]

I was at a local amateur radio swap-meet on Saturday, the 11th (mostly old fogeys, WWII and Nam vets) and was disappointed to see a "MUCK FUSLIMS" sign in a brand-new yellow Dodge Charger. What was even more disappointing was that nobody said anything, I suspect because they agreed.

Did you say anything? If not was it because you agreed with it?
posted by Tenuki at 8:05 PM on September 12, 2010 [5 favorites]

It may merely be a symbolic act, but book burning is one of the defining symbols of censorship. We burn books to express contempt for their contents, and to destroy them.

Contempt is not censorship!

And a symbol is not the same thing as what it's symbolizing.
posted by John Cohen at 8:07 PM on September 12, 2010 [3 favorites]

As he intended to burn it he basically had declared the book to be garbage, and most states consider it legal to take somebody else's garbage.

Were I his lawyer, I would convince him to testify that he was planning to eat it after setting it on fire, to get around this argument.

(Were I his lawyer, I would also be willing to forego winning the case to get the asshole to testify, sworn under oath oath, that he was planning to eat a Qur'an.)
posted by griphus at 8:08 PM on September 12, 2010 [3 favorites]

As he intended to burn it, he basically had declared the book to be garbage, and most states consider it legal to take somebody else's garbage.

Or he declared that burning it was the way he was going to express his contempt for Islam -- like evil performance art -- and the physical interference with his constitutionally protected speech and legally protected interest in the chattel.

Can't we just acknowledge that the law is not on the skateboarder's side while also recognizing that he's not the asshole in this scenario? The two don't always line up, but that's what executive pardons are for.
posted by Marty Marx at 8:18 PM on September 12, 2010 [8 favorites]

*the taking of the Qur'an was physical interference with...

For what it's worth, I suspect that the intuition that it isn't really a big deal come partially from the fact that we (rightly) think that the pastor is a bigot, partially from the fact that his bigoted view are supported by a major political party and so are not under a great threat of being extinguished, and partially from the fact that if he really wanted to burn the Qur'an, he would have just burned it instead of arguing with people about how he was totally going to burn it, any minute now.
posted by Marty Marx at 8:27 PM on September 12, 2010

Maybe the guy didn't have a burn permit and the skater dude actually prevented a crime from happening.
posted by The Hamms Bear at 8:28 PM on September 12, 2010 [8 favorites]

His opposition exercised their right to free speech.

No. Taking someone else's property, however trivial, is not speech.

As he intended to burn it, he basically had declared the book to be garbage, and most states consider it legal to take somebody else's garbage.

This is a shoddy legal argument.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 8:32 PM on September 12, 2010 [1 favorite]

That's a good point, The Hamms Bear. Did Grisham have a permit? Terry Jones didn't have one.

Florida denies permit to burn holy Quran
posted by naju at 8:36 PM on September 12, 2010

Splitting hairs while the world burns.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:38 PM on September 12, 2010 [2 favorites]

Commenting on hair-splitting while the world burns.
posted by The Hamms Bear at 8:47 PM on September 12, 2010 [1 favorite]

NONSENSICAL STATEMENT INVOLVING PLANKTON
posted by griphus at 8:50 PM on September 12, 2010 [12 favorites]

The confusing thing to me is, isn't idolatry forbidden in Islam? So why all the fuss over a bunch of ink and wood pulp?
posted by mullingitover at 8:53 PM on September 12, 2010

Even without a permit, that wouldn't be a defense to theft, Hamms. Skaterguy is just some private citizen, not a member of the police force charged with enforcing burning permits that may or may not exist. It's not even clear that it would be constitutional to require, much less deny, a burning permit for a fire that wouldn't be larger than, say, barbecue fires that are typically allowed without permits. It isn't like they have to build a bonfire to do this.

If they really, really wanted to burn a Qur'an they could just do it on a grill in the park, or on their own property and put it on Youtube. I don't think they want to burn them though. They want to get attention and talk shit about Muslims, but I suspect that even these assholes have the vague idea that book burning is something the baddies do. So I'm not especially concerned about the infringement on their rights, even if I do recognize it as an infringement, not only because no one got hurt, but because I think the theft allowed them a welcome way to back down.
posted by Marty Marx at 8:57 PM on September 12, 2010 [1 favorite]

I'd be curious about this being prosecuted as a theft case. As he intended to burn it, he basically had declared the book to be garbage, and most states consider it legal to take somebody else's garbage.

No, most places consider it legal to take somebody's garbage after they've put it out. You can't trespass to gain access to garbage. And opening a locked garbage container can be considered breaking and entering.

It's legal to take trash at the curb because it's been put out with the express intention of somebody taking it away. This kid yoinked somebody's personal property while he was looking the other way.

And he should be applauded for his illegal act.
posted by Netzapper at 9:01 PM on September 12, 2010 [2 favorites]

If you can't do it in real life you can always Virtually Burn A Religious Text
posted by Arthur Phillips Jones Jr at 9:04 PM on September 12, 2010

Its disrespectful and juvenile to burn another religion's holy text with the intent to provoke members of that religion.

It is moronic and juvenile to threaten violence if someone burns the holy text of your religion.

It is pandering and juvenile to give media attention to nobodies who intend to burn a holy text.
posted by Falconetti at 9:05 PM on September 12, 2010 [7 favorites]

It's all so damn complicated I just want to throw up my hands (my sign would say something like "I also support your right to burn the American flag but I also feel that is really stupid!") but at the end of the day, I'm pretty much always going to support book-savers over book-burners.
posted by nanojath at 9:06 PM on September 12, 2010 [1 favorite]

> The confusing thing to me is, isn't idolatry forbidden in Islam? So why all the fuss over a bunch of ink and wood pulp?

Lots of people, not just Muslims, are making a fuss. First books, then mosques. Battle lines get formed this way.

I'm actually not terribly concerned about idiots burning the Quran, but they need to be exposed and held in check because they would try to get away with much more.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:08 PM on September 12, 2010 [1 favorite]

If your speech is squelching, you should probably just refrain from talking until you've finished fellating that gentleman.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:09 PM on September 12, 2010

The confusing thing to me is, isn't idolatry forbidden in Islam? So why all the fuss over a bunch of ink and wood pulp?

The "idolatry" that's forbidden in Islam refers to "making graphic pictorial depictions of the Prophet Muhammed."

The objection here isn't about "idolatry". It's about the subtext behind the act of burning the Q'uran. I mean, Christianity also forbids idolatry, but yet I'm sure a lot of people would be up in arms if there was a Bible-burning, no?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:10 PM on September 12, 2010

I used to be opposed to so called the flag protection amendment, but I've come around. Burning these things is obscenity, not protected speech. These actions are acts of violence; not acts of political debate.

How do you feel about making certain "hate" words illegal, e.g. nigger, kike, spic? Those seem just as obscene as a burning flag. Actually, much more obscene.

Also, what about burning stuff that isn't a flag. What about burning a US Army uniform? Is that obscene? How about burning a picture of President Obama? Obscene?

All political speech (not just that which you deem debate-worthy) should be protected.

ALL political speech, including burning a Koran or burning an American flag.
posted by mrgrimm at 9:13 PM on September 12, 2010 [2 favorites]

Grisham, director of Repent Amarillo, which aims to deter promiscuity, homosexuality and non-Christian worship practices through confrontation and prayer, said he was just trying to exercise his right to free speech.

Repent Amarillo is a group which models its actions around the same philosophy of spiritual warfare that Ted Haggard was propounding when he started up New Life Church in Colorado Springs. It's full of people who wander around the streets praying in order to claim them for Jesus. They have a website which lists targets for their spiritual warfare, which include gay bars, new age bookstores, strip clubs, "open and affirming" churches, family planning clinics... basically any location in Amarillo which does anything that they consider sinful or evil.

The difference is that Amarillo is kind of standing up and fighting back, working hard to keep the group's activities in daylight where they can be tracked and reported on. Some of their actions were previously on the Blue.
posted by hippybear at 9:17 PM on September 12, 2010 [3 favorites]

The confusing thing to me is, isn't idolatry forbidden in Islam? So why all the fuss over a bunch of ink and wood pulp?

Well, the thing is, the Quran is considered by Muslims to be the actual and literal word of Allah. Many don't even encourage translations of it, because that is seen by many as a distortion of the words. Burning it is a pretty strong statement, and for more conservative believers, it's a direct attack on the basis of their religion. I can't think of any clear parallel. Maybe for conservative Catholics, if someone were to stage a burning of the transubstantiated Eucharistic bread and wine.
posted by hippybear at 9:23 PM on September 12, 2010

What does free speech have to do with this situation? Are people now capable of communicating clearly by burning books? And I can only imagine internetbertarians are overclocking their tiny minds to come up with the conclusion that even the tiniest amount of theft is occurring here.

Fucking radical amounts of wow to the max, dude.
posted by Gamien Boffenburg at 9:23 PM on September 12, 2010

Fucking radical amounts of wow to the max, dude.

Ew, TMI.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:37 PM on September 12, 2010

Are people now capable of communicating clearly by burning books?

W/r/t Repent Amarillo's opinion of Islam: do you find any ambiguity?
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:51 PM on September 12, 2010

Are people now capable of communicating clearly by burning books? And I can only imagine internetbertarians are overclocking their tiny minds to come up with the conclusion that even the tiniest amount of theft is occurring here.

Yes, burning books is protected speech in the U.S. under the first amendment. So is burning crosses, Bibles, flags, Beatles records, and so on. There's a whole organization dedicated to defending and explaining this and related issues: the ACLU. This isn't new jurisprudence here, though it is unusual compared to most other countries.

As for theft, Pastorguy owned the copy of the Qur'an. Skaterguy took it from him when he wasn't looking, knowingly and without his consent, and gave it away to someone else. That's theft, even if we don't like Pastorguy. Maybe you have an argument for why it is not theft that my "tiny, overclocked mind" does not immediately see. Whether it is theft, of course, is an entirely different question from whether it was moral and whether it merits punishment. The latter are what I think most folks are really interested in.

And for what it's worth, I'm a socialist, not an internetbertarian. The Marx part is a hint. Maybe I was being subtle.
posted by Marty Marx at 9:57 PM on September 12, 2010 [1 favorite]

EmpressCallipygos: "The objection here isn't about "idolatry". It's about the subtext behind the act of burning the Q'uran. I mean, Christianity also forbids idolatry, but yet I'm sure a lot of people would be up in arms if there was a Bible-burning, no?"

I doubt anyone would be killed over a mass Bible burning. I even considered putting together a Kickstarter project that would pledge to burn a Bible for each Koran burned by the geniuses down in Florida, and I wouldn't worry for my safety if I pulled it off. The thing is, it appears that to many Muslims the physical artifact of the Koran is really something that's fetishized and defended more than the message it contains. Wasn't flushing a Koran one of the things the US Government did to prisoners in Guantanamo to 'break' them mentally?
posted by mullingitover at 10:00 PM on September 12, 2010

The headline is "Protester steals Quran", isn't it?

Again: Seriously? You're going to read this as literally as humanly possible?

If you have a point to make about the protester, just make it, for goodness sakes. Sheesh.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:10 PM on September 12, 2010

I really don't think people should burn a book unless they've read it first.
posted by TooFewShoes at 10:12 PM on September 12, 2010 [2 favorites]

Yes, burning books is protected speech in the U.S. under the first amendment.

Preventing the book from burning would be unconstitutional censorship.

the physical interference with his constitutionally protected speech

There is no government action here. So there is no First Amendment issue. End of story. And even if a government entity prevented the book from burning, it may be justified (the city had a significant health/safety interest in doing so, for example.)
posted by naju at 10:25 PM on September 12, 2010

"W/r/t Repent Amarillo's opinion of Islam: do you find any ambiguity?"

Of course not. But it's 'speech' the way shitting on a doormat is 'speech'.
posted by Gamien Boffenburg at 10:28 PM on September 12, 2010

When are these fundamentalists going to join the 21st century and burn a stack of Kindles that have the Quran downloaded onto them?
posted by msalt at 10:35 PM on September 12, 2010 [3 favorites]

"Maybe you have an argument for why it is not theft that my "tiny, overclocked mind" does not immediately see."

Why are you even interested in a 'theft' angle? Why would that be a priority for you? That's what I don't immediately see.
posted by Gamien Boffenburg at 10:36 PM on September 12, 2010 [1 favorite]

Burning a book is not censoring unwanted speech.

I'm guessing you haven't read Fahrenheit 451?
posted by msalt at 10:36 PM on September 12, 2010 [2 favorites]

From my somewhat rusty religious studies knowledge. The Quran is the actual word of God in Islam, not some rough approxmation of events written by a prophet or his followers. The Quran was dictated to Mohammed by Allah and is the perfect revelation. The Quran is the medium though which one connects to God, just as in Catholicism one connects through the sacraments at Mass. Chanting the verses, reading the verses or writing them are acts of supreme religious devotion in Islam. Imagine the reaction of various Catholc groups if we has national crap on the host day?
posted by humanfont at 10:38 PM on September 12, 2010 [4 favorites]

"The first amendment only applies to government actions, in case that wasn't clear."
posted by naju at 9:59 PM on September 12

The actual text of the amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

See you next semester.
posted by vapidave at 10:45 PM on September 12, 2010

vapidave: state action requirement.
posted by naju at 10:56 PM on September 12, 2010 [1 favorite]

I think we need to distinguish between moral and legal justification. Jacob Isom (the skateboarder) was acting morally, but that doesn't mean that what he did was or should have been legal.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:09 PM on September 12, 2010

Why are you even interested in a 'theft' angle? Why would that be a priority for you? That's what I don't immediately see.

Because someone asked about it, which prompted some bad explanations* why it wasn't theft, which prompted further discussion about the disjoint between what the law prohibits and what is deserving of opprobrium. So, my priority would be showing why, even if it is theft, there it is possible to praise Skaterguy's action while also affirming laws that prohibit stealing and physically interfering with others' speech.

But that's all plain as day from the thread, and a new set of goalposts from your original insult.

There is no government action here. So there is no First Amendment issue. End of story.
Except people are asking whether there should or could be laws in the US against burning religious books, and whether facially neutral burning permit requirements could be used instead (answer: not to do what you want to do). Even without those issues that directly raise the question of government action, there are concerns about the principle of free speech (distinct from the First Amendment itself) that seem to require commitment to not physically interfering with others' speech, and concerns about how the government could or should respond.

*(sorry, no offense intended AZ, but it was)
posted by Marty Marx at 11:12 PM on September 12, 2010 [2 favorites]

Commenting on hair-splitting while the world burns.

Given that that's what we're doing, perhaps you'd tolerate a minor derail while one of you Americans answer a question about the teabaggers for me.

Whenever I see a picture of teabaggers at a rally, there are always a pile of them carrying a picture of a coiled turd with the words 'Don't Tread On Me!'

Are these people really so dumb that whenever they visit the big city, they need to be continually reminded not to step in dogshit?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:40 PM on September 12, 2010 [1 favorite]

Apparently conservatives who support this kind of shit don't like when they get called bigots.

But it confounds the hell of out me when they don't understand why...
posted by hellslinger at 11:41 PM on September 12, 2010

Well, I hope it was an original insult. I do try.
posted by Gamien Boffenburg at 12:01 AM on September 13, 2010

I can't get all worked up about Quran burning, tbh. It's paper and ink. Burn the Quran, burn bibles, burn the american flag. Just leave actual people alone.
posted by empath at 12:19 AM on September 13, 2010 [3 favorites]

Whenever I see a picture of teabaggers at a rally, there are always a pile of them carrying a picture of a coiled turd with the words 'Don't Tread On Me!'

I can't tell if you're serious, but on the off chance that you are, it's a Revolutionary War flag, and it's a snake.
posted by empath at 12:20 AM on September 13, 2010

Whenever I see a picture of teabaggers at a rally, there are always a pile of them carrying a picture of a coiled turd with the words 'Don't Tread On Me!'

You're, uh, kidding right? It's so hard to tell sometimes.

In any case, that's a rattlesnake.
posted by Justinian at 12:22 AM on September 13, 2010

What kind of idiot determined to burn a book only brings one copy of the book to burn?
posted by Evilspork at 12:43 AM on September 13, 2010 [2 favorites]

Evilspork: "What kind of idiot determined to burn a book only brings one copy of the book to burn?"

I'm curious as to how he got it in the first place. He could get one for free if he contacted a mosque. But if he went to a book store, even with the intention of destroying what he purchased, he demonstrated that there was a demand for the very thing he hated.
posted by autoclavicle at 1:12 AM on September 13, 2010

Fuckin right! Gnarly bro!
posted by molecicco at 2:32 AM on September 13, 2010

AdamCSnider: "MUCK"

It's pretty common concerning colleges, mostly the football teams. It's a way to put in on the shirt and still have kids able to wear the shirt to school since it doesn't say fuck anywhere.

mrgrimm: "How do you feel about making certain "hate" words illegal, e.g. nigger, kike, spic? "

I know lots of black kids in my school district who would be off to jail then, or at least talked to by the cop at the school about how they'd be going to jail if they did that not at school. That's probably not the demographic the law would be intended to go after. Which in my mind is a good enough reason in itself why that should never happen.
posted by theichibun at 4:23 AM on September 13, 2010

Time to make a stencil.
posted by NoMich at 4:47 AM on September 13, 2010 [2 favorites]

Oops, hit the "Post Comment" button too soon. The artwork is from a Daily Kos member.
posted by NoMich at 4:48 AM on September 13, 2010

Koran Burner: Creepier Than You Think
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:18 AM on September 13, 2010

I think the coiled turd thing was a joke, ye of little humor.

A damn funny one.
posted by fourcheesemac at 5:25 AM on September 13, 2010

We need to remember our history here. If these assholes are allowed to burn Korans, we will lose Islam forever. That's how we lost rock-and-roll and comic books.

Seriously, how mentally retarded do you have to be that you think killing the vessel kills the idea? These guys are "pastors"(quotes needed, of course). They deal in ideas, and yet they don't understand ideas at all.

Darwin doesn't work fast enough, sometimes.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 5:36 AM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

As he intended to burn it, he basically had declared the book to be garbage

Or fuel (fuel for a nice bloody war of religion, in this case). And stealing fuel is pretty much illegal everywhere (unless you call it "regime change").
posted by Skeptic at 6:26 AM on September 13, 2010

The thing is, it appears that to many Muslims the physical artifact of the Koran is really something that's fetishized and defended more than the message it contains. Wasn't flushing a Koran one of the things the US Government did to prisoners in Guantanamo to 'break' them mentally?

This is something non-Muslims don't typically really understand well. The Christian Bible is understood to be a collection of writings, some of which originate before the birth of Christ, and some which were written long after Christ's death. Some people do believe it to be the "word of God," but this is a little fanciful, not simply because that sort of thing is inherently fanciful to many, but because there is substantiated knowledge of many of the ways it was assembled and altered by people and institutions, as well as many choices of what to omit.

People may believe that all this editing and compiling occurred as part of God's master plan or something - in other words, the Bible, despite its changes and manipulations, somehow still remains the work of God . . . but most Christians see it as a kind of metaphorical tool and guidebook rather than the Literal Word Of God. Its strength is in its interpretations, for the most part, not its literality.

It's kind of the other way around with the Koran. Although the origins of the Koran are equally (or even more) fanciful to many people, it doesn't have the editors and authors the Bible has. Believers believe it came to be from a single voice, that of Allah, through his prophet Mohammed, and whether anyone here agrees or not, it certainly reads much more singularly than the Bible, and there isn't a historical record which points to the involvement of anyone other than Allah or Mohammed in its creation. This may sound ridiculous to many people, obviously! But my point is that, it's a lot less an assemblage than the Bible.

So for Muslims, it's kind of like the Word is God. The Koran is literally the word of God; man's attempts to interpret or make "better" sense of it will always be slightly less than the text itself. Its interpretations are doomed to inferiority, in a way. The Koran isn't intrinsically fetishized in the way some have implied, but as someone pointed out already, it's kind of analgous to the Holy Sacrament in Catholicism, it transcends symbolism to become, literally, what it represents. The message it "contains" is inextricable from the book itself.

Additionally, one has to keep in mind that much of the Islamic world is poor and illiterate. Generally speaking, great care is taken when the Koran is printed and it can be an expensive book. It's often the only book that a Muslim family will ever be able to own, and if one thinks back to the treasure a family Bible was to many, even only a century ago, that might make its "preciousness" more understandable.
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 6:31 AM on September 13, 2010 [10 favorites]

This made me laugh:

Saturday, the day that Jones had dubbed “International Burn a Qur’an Day,”

Trying to elevate an idiotic stunt by calling it "International [Stupid Act] Day" amuses me-- it fools no one and makes the instigator look a pompous fool who is trying to involve the entire world into his jackassery. Just imagine if James Gilpin had called his project International Turn Diabetic Piss Into Whiskey Day.

While I applaud the skate boarder for his actions because they turned the stunt around from an act of protest against all Muslims into a discussion about first amendment rights, I still think the best thing to do is nothing; symbolic gestures only work if you are outraged otherwise they just remain silly stunts.

The confusing thing to me is, isn't idolatry forbidden in Islam? So why all the fuss over a bunch of ink and wood pulp?

There was a pretty damn big fuss when Sinead O'Conner tore up a picture of the Pope-- she got a lot more press and outrage then Jones could ever hope for.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:49 AM on September 13, 2010

I CAN'T BELIEVE I'M GOING TO SAY THIS.

Book burning is a serious form of protest to ideas that are found by some group or another to be ideologically repellent. This is pretty much true throughout history. There's something about it that provokes a very visceral reaction, especially when holy books are involved.

Again, I CAN NOT BELIEVE I AM ABOUT TO TYPE THESE WORDS ON METAFILTER:

One of the ways that Hitler (gourd, can't believe I'm saying this) drummed up public anti-Semitic sentiment was by holding book burnings. Nothing like bringing people together around a big fire of burning books to unite public opinion. No, really, it's an amazing force of getting like minded people stirred up and united in hatred.

Yes, free speech absolutely protects book burnings in the US, but I honestly can't believe I'm seeing people saying that preventing this kind of event that is organized solely to stir up hatred is some how a bad thing. Sure, legally the skateboard guy may not be in the clear, but his heart was obviously in the right place - that place being someone who wanted to do some small thing to stop a group of people from stirring up hatred towards a religious group.

With the history of book burnings and how they've been used in the past, I get a little twitchy when I see people wanting to protect the burning of a Qu'ran under the auspices of "free speech." It may be legal, but it's dangerous in terms of the emotional force that it carries - giving people who feel strongly against Muslims something to rally around and further entrench their hatred.

The man who stopped this also made a powerful statement - the statement that he personally was not going to sit by and watch hatred flourish. That, to me, is a statement worth making and I would hope that people would be able to look past the legalities involved and focus more on each party's intent before making judgment calls.

(Of course, if you've already done this and you've decided for yourself that you're more comfortable with book burning than petty theft, that's your prerogative and we simply disagree.)
posted by sonika at 7:22 AM on September 13, 2010 [12 favorites]

it doesn't have the editors and authors the Bible has.

Are you saying this is what Muslims believe, or that this is what is actually true? Becauses the earliest complete copies of the Quran we have are from hundreds of years after Mohammed died, and earlier versions show much evidence of editing, etc, over the years.
posted by empath at 7:35 AM on September 13, 2010

I can't believe no one's commented on the other act of solidarity that day--the Muslim man they interviewed describes some of the protesters putting their hands on the grill that was going to be used to burn the Koran, preventing it from being lit. To me, that's a much more moving and courageous action.
posted by EarBucket at 7:55 AM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

Location: Starbucks bathroom, Atlantic and Federal, S. Florida.
Date: 9/12/10
Time: 12:00 PM
Scrawled writing on wall reads:

"ISLAM IS THE PROBLEM!"

Location: Starbucks bathroom, Atlantic and Federal, S. Florida.
Date: 9/12/10
Time: 12:02 PM
Scrawled writing on wall with fresh key marks reads:

"ISLAM IS THE PROBLEM!

FTFY.
posted by Debaser626 at 8:10 AM on September 13, 2010 [5 favorites]

Why are you checking the Starbucks bathroom every two minutes?
posted by maryr at 8:27 AM on September 13, 2010

STEAL THIS BOOK
posted by chugg at 8:27 AM on September 13, 2010

Koran burner creepier than you think.

No he isn't.
posted by pianomover at 8:33 AM on September 13, 2010

where do these pastors get their Qur'ans, anyways? If they're buying their own copies, that makes for a marvelously perverse and ironic circuit of capital and consumption. All we need now is for some enterprising publisher to start selling EZ-Burn Qur'ans, charging a premium for them, printing it with randomly-generated arabic script (so that they are not actual Qur'ans), and then quietly directing most of the profits to Muslim mosque-building charities.
posted by LMGM at 8:34 AM on September 13, 2010

Why are you checking the Starbucks bathroom every two minutes?

What can I say? Coffee goes straight through me... Literally. It can be a bit of a problem.

Actually, it takes forever to properly gouge oil based commercial paint with a rounded-edge car key... well, I assume it does in any case.... Because I would never add to the vandalization of private property, so I can only assume that the other guy that did that thing in that place with what I presume to be a rounded-edge car key must've taken two minutes to etch two simple "Xs" into the aforementioned (and might I add PREEXISTING, graffitti.)
posted by Debaser626 at 8:49 AM on September 13, 2010

Hey, watch the slams at "old foggys" WWII and Vietnam vets. At first it was a bit humorous but now that I think of it--the comment is no less pernicious than the kind of bigotry the poster eschews. I know for a fact that not all nor most persons in those categories are hate mongering a..holes. On the factual side it was those many of those persons who supported and made possible the civil rights and free speech legislation and rulings necessary to get us to this point. Think about your mean spiritedness, factual inaccuracies, pejudices and lack of historical perspective before shooting your posts off. Or remain insensitive and substantially at risk of becoming what you deride. An "old foggy"
posted by rmhsinc at 9:02 AM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

I can't tell if you're serious

OK, I was half-joking. I'd Google Image'd the flag, so I'd seen it blown up and knew it was a snake.

But the reason I Google Image'd it in the first place was because I genuinely thought it was a turd the first few times I saw it.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:16 AM on September 13, 2010

It seems that the entire "burn their holy book" thing has already cost lives.

Fourteen killed in Koran protests across Indian Kashmir
posted by hippybear at 9:24 AM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

naju, when I made the comment you quoted (can't copy/paste on my iTouch, sorry), I assumed (probably incorrectly) that Astro Zombie's question was about government censorship. I realized later that he probably meant the guy who stole the Koran. Thank you for your refresher course on the First Amendment, though I actually remembered your point from the First Amendment course I took in law school.
posted by John Cohen at 9:34 AM on September 13, 2010

I figured it was a misunderstanding, didn't mean to insult your intelligence John.
posted by naju at 9:40 AM on September 13, 2010

I thought Bart Simpson was fictional.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:04 AM on September 13, 2010

It seems that the entire "burn their holy book" thing has already cost lives.

While acknowledging that the pastor who announced his intent to burn the Quran is very likely an ignorant bigot, it is also true that no-one is responsible for violence in response to such a symbolic act except the evil thugs who perpetrate the violence. Anyone who commits serious acts of violence because some nobody burned a book is seriously unhinged and beyond the pale of civilization.

Burning the Quran: likely an act of ignorance or bigotry.

Killing someone because a Quran was burned: evil.
posted by Justinian at 11:15 AM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

> Killing someone because a Quran was burned: evil.

Yes, those deaths were pointless and tragic. However, it may be shallow to presume that the protests erupted in a vacuum. I've not seen (nor can I read) any urdu language coverage of the attempted burns in the US so we don't know how inflammatory the reports were. Also, the people in that region riot often, as there is lots of social unrest, uncertainty, and tension with their neighbors. If it wasn't the Quran burning, something similarly trivial seeming might have sparked them off.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:25 AM on September 13, 2010

While acknowledging that the pastor who announced his intent to burn the Quran is very likely an ignorant bigot, it is also true that no-one is responsible for violence in response to such a symbolic act except the evil thugs who perpetrate the violence. Anyone who commits serious acts of violence because some nobody burned a book is seriously unhinged and beyond the pale of civilization.

Burning the Quran: likely an act of ignorance or bigotry.

Killing someone because a Quran was burned: evil.

Well, yeah. But if the reason for burning the Quran in the first place is the belief that Muslims are "evil thugs who perpetrate the violence," wouldn't the book-burner be that much more likely to anticipate a violent reaction? Would it not follow that the intent of the book-burner may well have been to incite that violence?
posted by Sys Rq at 11:34 AM on September 13, 2010

Perhaps. It's also true that if you leave your front door open you may well get robbed. Leaving your front door open might, therefore, be stupid to do but the moral responsibility for the theft is still on the robbers.
posted by Justinian at 11:51 AM on September 13, 2010 [3 favorites]

Killing someone because a Quran was burned: evil.

Which could, if you want to go down that road, get you to "Burning a Qu'ran in hopes of starting a riot, in which people then get killed: evil." It's never that easy to just point your finger and say "Ok, this was fucked up and this right here is where it went all the way up to evil."

Just skimming the article - the deaths took place in the context of larger protests, so it's very hard to point to any one person in that crowd and say "You. You are evil. The rest of you are just messed up." Any number of people could have died in the generalized violence that was going on, it was not "Oh, you're burning a Qu'ran? That's nice. I'm going to go and kill fourteen people." It's just not that simple.

I agree that the whole thing is just awful, but I can't get my own GRAR levels up any higher than "Geezie Creezie, this whole thing is just fucked." I'm hardly seeing anything that warrants a call-out of "evil." (I include in this the book-burners themselves, with whom I disagree vehemently and find loathsome. But not so far as to go to "evil.")
posted by sonika at 12:01 PM on September 13, 2010 [2 favorites]

The Quran is the actual word of God in Islam, not some rough approxmation of events written by a prophet or his followers.

Which is what 38% of Americans believe about the Bible.

Imagine the reaction of various Catholc groups if we had national crap on the host day?

OK, I did. No one rioted and no one was killed. People were outraged and complained to high heaven. It's hard for me to believe that people making this analogy grew up in a Catholic church. Certainly not the ones I've gone to.

You don't have to see the reaction of members of every religion as equivalent to say that burning the Koran is wrong. I think burning any book is wrong, it's a visceral embrace of ignorance, a deliberate return to the dark ages, censorship at its most violent.

But I also don't think you have to embrace Koran burning to say there's something a little fucked up about intimidating people from offending you by threatening violence, riots and retaliatory attacks. It's a bit more clear cut with political cartoons and films protesting the abuse of women than book burning, but the principle is the same.
posted by msalt at 12:13 PM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

> OK, I did. No one rioted and no one was killed.

First off, the police in Kashmir were the ones doing the killing. That doesn't excuse the rioters for going nuts but it contextualizes the deaths a bit more. Secondly, just because you can't imagine something doesn't mean it wouldn't happen.
posted by Burhanistan at 12:17 PM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

just because you can't imagine something doesn't mean it wouldn't happen.

And just because you say "What if people shat on the communion wafer?" doesn't mean it would. Until some real life examples are on the table, it's all spitballing.
posted by msalt at 12:24 PM on September 13, 2010

Well, we do have some real-life examples.

"Piss Christ" for example? It was quite controversial but there was no significant violence. Given that there were deaths related to plain ol' cartoons of Mohammed I think it is absolutely reasonable to say that the reaction to an art exhibit featuring a statue of Mohammed submerged in urine would provoke an even stronger reaction. It's not all spitballing.

Which ties in to my point; Was "piss Christ" bigoted? Was it evil? That was a hell of a lot more disrespectful than burning a book. So I'm pretty comfortable drawing a line between actions which don't in and of themselves harm anyone (such as submerging a crucifix in urine or destroying a book) and actions which do directly harm people even if the people in the latter category claim they are doing it in reaction to the people in the former category. Hell, I'm comfortable drawing that line even if the people performing the disrespectful activities can reasonably expect the reaction.

I agree with you, Burhanistan, that you can't reduce the riots in Kashmir to this simplistic level of analysis; I'm speaking generally not necessarily directly to the Kashmir incident.
posted by Justinian at 12:49 PM on September 13, 2010 [1 favorite]

Well, when it comes to retaliation for blasphemy, Catholics tend to be the ones throwing things on the fire. They've burned a lot of albums by the Beatles and Sinéad O'Connor, for example. So it's sort of hard to know which side of this case to compare them to.
posted by Sys Rq at 2:57 PM on September 13, 2010

IMO, the media that is covering these yokels is more responsible than the yokels themselves.
posted by empath at 4:56 PM on September 13, 2010

Did you say anything? If not was it because you agreed with it?

I think it would have ended up rather like this scene in Invasion of the Body Snatchers. And then they would have bludgeoned me to death with their key rings and 2-meter handy-talkies.
posted by dunkadunc at 5:17 PM on September 13, 2010

I think it would have ended up rather like this scene in Invasion of the Body Snatchers. And then they would have bludgeoned me to death with their key rings and 2-meter handy-talkies.

Gods, yes. Exactly. If you're not with them, you clearly hate America and are probably a ter'rist.

Even in our small community of 15,000 in what is supposedly the progressive Northwest, the Tea Party rallies have turned really ugly. Keep in mind, these are ignorant, unthinking people who are mad as hell about something, they just can't quite put their finger on exactly what, and that upsets them even more. They just know that it's all the fault of the God Damned Muslims, that Barack HUSSEIN Obama, and something something socialism.

I have to wonder if commenters like Tenuki have ever stood in the middle a large crowd of people who are hysterical, angry, mostly uneducated and impossible to reason with, and called them out on their bullshit. It's like that Ron White bit, "I didn't know how many of them it was going to take to whip my ass, but I knew how many they were going to use."

Once, right after 9/11, there was a mob of angry idiots downtown, yelling horrible things, condeming all Muslims as ter'rists, waving signs that said "NUKE THE RAGHEADS" and so on. I was on the opposite corner with the counter-protesters, promoting peace and tolerance. This huge gorilla of a man and a half-dozen of his buddies, all bulging out of their tattered Carhartts, came over and got right in our faces. They started yelling at us, red-faced with veins popping out and spittle flying with every word; I was scared as hell, and ashamed to say that by the time the cops had intervened, I had melted back into the crowd, got some distance, had a case of the shakes and puked, and went home shortly afterward.

The kind of people who burn Qur'ans and who have MUCK FUSLIMS signs are irrational, angry, cannot be reasoned with and are one spark away from turning into an instant lynch mob. So yeah, honestly now. Given the situation, would you have said anything?
posted by xedrik at 7:17 PM on September 13, 2010 [2 favorites]

OK, I did. No one rioted and no one was killed. People were outraged and complained to high heaven. It's hard for me to believe that people making this analogy grew up in a Catholic church. Certainly not the ones I've gone to.

A Michigan student desecrated the host and He got death threats and the conservative Catholic grouos tried to get him expelled and have the legislature pass a bill describing future acts as a hate crime.

If some ira guys had hit the WTC and Pentagon and we'd occupied Ireland in retaliation, then perhaps we'd see more rioting over a host desecration on 9-11. You kind of need the broader emotional backdrop.

To at least make a similar test case you would need to build a media campaign around your forthcoming host desecration, set perhaps for Halloween. You should be sure to make some bigoted anti catholic statements and get some publicity on television.
posted by humanfont at 9:51 PM on September 13, 2010 [3 favorites]

OK, I did. No one rioted and no one was killed. People were outraged and complained to high heaven.

Well, I didn't grow up Catholic. And I was grasping for some kind of equivalent religious desecration metaphor. Perhaps I picked the wrong one.

But if one thing is clear from all this, it is that the typical Western mind doesn't really grasp clearly the significance of Quran burning as it relates to Islam as practiced in the more conservative areas of the world.

Worldview can be a powerful thing, and like fish, I don't think a lot of people understand the water they swim in and its implications for life which exists in other bodies of water. As Kipling said "what does they know of England, who only England knows?"

In short... just because YOU, dear reader, don't understand what all the fuss is about, doesn't mean there isn't something to make a fuss about.
posted by hippybear at 10:43 PM on September 13, 2010

just because YOU, dear reader, don't understand what all the fuss is about, doesn't mean there isn't something to make a fuss about.

True. But just because we don't share a worldview, doesn't mean that worldview is OK. I don't understand the homophobic worldview or Christian Identity either. It's always worthwhile to try to understand other perspectives, and I do, even with something like FGM, but that doesn't mean it's not fucked up or beyond the pale.

And IMHO, killing people because someone criticized your culture's treatment of women or drew a cartoon of your prophet or even, yes, burned your holy book is fucked up. The precise ideological reasoning behind your violence doesn't really make it OK.
posted by msalt at 9:13 AM on September 14, 2010

If some ira guys had hit the WTC and Pentagon and we'd occupied Ireland in retaliation, then perhaps we'd see more rioting over a host desecration on 9-11....To at least make a similar test case you would need to build a media campaign around your forthcoming host desecration, set perhaps for Halloween.

I dunno, you seem like you're really stretching here.
posted by msalt at 9:16 AM on September 14, 2010

True. But just because we don't share a worldview, doesn't mean that worldview is OK. I don't understand the homophobic worldview or Christian Identity either. It's always worthwhile to try to understand other perspectives, and I do, even with something like FGM, but that doesn't mean it's not fucked up or beyond the pale.

Yes, but that's not what I'm reading in this discussion thread. What I find here isn't a lot of "well, their worldview is wrong". Instead it's a lot of "I simply don't see what they're getting so worked up about -- it's jut paper and ink". Which, at its core, is pretty culturally myopic.
posted by hippybear at 11:27 AM on September 14, 2010

Fair enough. On that level, the analogy to the communion wafer is apt.

May seem crazy to outsiders to think that a printer can create the actual word of God, or a priest can turn bread into pieces of the true Body. But pretty much every religion has something "crazy" in it. Otherwise I guess it would be a philosophy.
posted by msalt at 12:45 PM on September 14, 2010

Robert Wright on the good and bad in the Koran (and in the Bible) NYT, but also really good. Did you know that Moslems first prayed toward Jerusalem, not Mecca?
posted by msalt at 9:37 AM on September 15, 2010

> Did you know that Moslems first prayed toward Jerusalem, not Mecca?

I've been to the mosque in Medina where they switched directions in mid-prayer. Anyway, God is the real qibla--the earthly direction just serves to unify and orient.

> Otherwise I guess it would be a philosophy.

Well, crazy is as crazy does, and that statement is kind of obtuse. But, properly speaking, the Quran is the revelation that was received. It is not the physical book. The book is called a mushaf and wasn't compiled until the Caliph Umar's rule. There is no solid evidence supporting or denying that edits were made, so any conversation about that will just be biased.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:43 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

Kabul protest over US Koran row
posted by homunculus at 11:52 AM on September 15, 2010

> Kabul protest over US Koran row

From the photo caption: "Police said the protest was organised by the Taliban to disrupt Saturday's parliamentary elections"

So, we have something that is clearly politicized. I'm not denying the anger in the Muslim world over the proposed burning, but the popular spin is something like "OMG they're so violent!" when what's more accurate to say is that this is just one of a long string of riots and protests taking place. What seems to be the reason on the surface is merely a thin excuse. Disenfranchised people will protest and riot without much provocation.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:55 AM on September 15, 2010 [2 favorites]

Koran Hero Has a Dream: 'I Want to Be in High Times'
posted by homunculus at 11:07 AM on September 16, 2010 [2 favorites]

Oh shit. Half of my in-laws are from Dumas, Texas. A rather odd place.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:13 PM on September 16, 2010

Dumas, Texas? Is that pronounced "doo maw" or "dumb ass"?
posted by msalt at 2:26 PM on September 16, 2010

And of course, the remix.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:59 PM on September 16, 2010

From the photo caption: "Police said the protest was organised by the Taliban to disrupt Saturday's parliamentary elections". So, we have something that is clearly politicized. I'm not denying the anger in the Muslim world over the proposed burning, but the popular spin is something like "OMG they're so violent!" when what's more accurate to say is that this is just one of a long string of riots and protests taking place.

Exactly. The Kabul Protest about the "US Q'uran burning" was no spontaneous outburst, it was more like, say, Glenn Beck's rally to "restore honor".
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:00 AM on September 17, 2010

Dumas, Texas? Is that pronounced "doo maw" or "dumb ass"?

doo'-muhs
posted by mrgrimm at 10:36 AM on September 17, 2010

>doo'-muhs

or Doomis, I suppose. Thanks, a lot of ways to go wrong with that one.
posted by msalt at 12:55 PM on September 17, 2010

It's dew-mahss
posted by cmoj at 3:23 PM on September 17, 2010

He got his wish: Burn Buds, Not Books
posted by homunculus at 5:04 PM on September 17, 2010

> He got his wish: Burn Buds, Not Books

Well, now that he's accomplished that goal, he can now set his sights on the holy grail of stoner accomplishments: smoking a doobie with Willie Nelson.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:40 PM on September 17, 2010

City puts cost of Quran-burning security at $200,000, sends bill to church.
posted by ericb at 11:09 AM on September 19, 2010

Gainesville City Manager Russ Blackburn said he doesn't know if the city has legal authority to compel the church to pay.

I haven't said this in probably 30 years, but no shit, sherlock.
posted by mrgrimm at 2:15 PM on September 19, 2010

« Older Ted Koppel: Nine years after 9/11, let's stop play... | Behind the opening scenes of B... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

I’m in Repent Amarillo No Joke September 12, 2010 5:50 PM Subscribe

I’m in Repent Amarillo No Joke
September 12, 2010 5:50 PM Subscribe