arsehole muslim extremists burn poppies

[Stoic Hero]

To you. Nothing is sacred. To you.

To them, the books are the most important thing in the world. To them, religion is everything. You don't have to believe what they believe to realize that they take everything about their religion serious. And burning a sacred book is a very, very serious offense to them.

How would you feel if someone burned the Constitution? Or just went around burning the American flag? Assuming you are an American, you'd find this kind of thing appalling.

Whatever you hold dear in your life, whether it be religion, law, science, theater, etc, you would be pissed to hell if someone burned something you hold in high regard, especially to the extent that they hold their holy books.

 

[CassinoChips]

How would you feel if someone burned the Constitution? Or just went around burning the American flag? Assuming you are an American, you'd find this kind of thing appalling.

THE Constitution? If they could get their hands on that, more power to them. A copy of the Constitution? It's actually protected as free speech under the First Amendment to that very document. As is flag burning. So as an American, I respect their right to perform such actions, since that right has been granted to them by law.

 

[der Astronom]

To you. Nothing is sacred. To you.

To them, the books are the most important thing in the world. To them, religion is everything. You don't have to believe what they believe to realize that they take everything about their religion serious. And burning a sacred book is a very, very serious offense to them.

And you know what? I happen to think there's no good reason for holding onto these silly ideas as being sacred. Can you come up with a good reason for it? If you can't, there's no good reason for people to be clinging onto ideas as being sacred, and no reason why I have to bend over backwards for them. I don't have to put up with people being unreasonable for the same reason scientists don't keep failed hypotheses.

And so what if people get offended? That doesn't give them the right to give religion special pleading just because they're offended. People get offended by politics all the time, but nobody's stopping them from making satire off of it. Just because someone gets offended from some criticism doesn't mean I shouldn't do it.

Actually, that raises a good question: if you believe that religion should receive special pleading for people getting offended, then do you believe it is right for people to act out their being offended by doing things like burning poppies and committing violence against people who criticize religion by making artwork or comics depicting their religion? And if you don't believe it's right, then do you believe they need to be punished, and why or why not?

You know what it actually is? This whole idea of not being allowed to criticize anything in religion is because religion is a weak argument for justifying anything in the first place. It's not only weak, but it's that people have decided because it's so weak, it shouldn't be attacked, and that there's nothing really wrong with religion. And I don't think it's a good idea to be encouraging this idea because there are better, more fascinating ideas and arguments out there besides religion, and telling people that everything about their religion is fine is just plain dishonest, more bending over backwards, and if I did it, I wouldn't be doing them a favor anyways.

How would you feel if someone burned the Constitution? Or just went around burning the American flag? Assuming you are an American, you'd find this kind of thing appalling.

Well, I'm not. And when I said nothing is sacred, I have no idea why you think this is supposed to mean anything.

Whatever you hold dear in your life, whether it be religion, law, science, theater, etc, you would be pissed to hell if someone burned something you hold in high regard, especially to the extent that they hold their holy books.

And unlike some people, I believe it is perfectly fine to get offended over these things. But I also happen to believe that blatantly destroying the things that belong to people who view things differently from you or that symbolize something that other people view as being important gets us nowhere. I believe debates like these where there is an exchange of ideas is one of the best ways of getting people to realize you're offended, why you're offended, if there's anything that needs to be done about it, and if so, what needs to be done about it. Sure, it might mean more people being offended, but it's not as if destroying stuff doesn't already offend enough people in the first place anyways.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

From the article, the judge said:

"You stole the book and went out with the deliberate aim of causing the maximum publicity, and the maximum distress for people of the Islamic faith. People are entitled to protest in this country, it is a free country, but you are not entitled to do it in such a way as it will inflame."

But isn't any protest designed to gain the most publicity and cause the most distress for your opponents? Couldn't any protest against Islam be construed as inflammatory? From the perspective of someone who doesn't live in the UK, this definitely seems like a double standard. But then again, I don't know the line between harassment and protest in the UK.

Whatever you hold dear in your life, whether it be religion, law, science, theater, etc, you would be pissed to hell if someone burned something you hold in high regard, especially to the extent that they hold their holy books.

Actually... no. Unless they were burning one of the physical things I owned, I wouldn't really be bothered. The extent of my offense would be "What morons" and would be overshadowed by my amusement at their anger and meaningless gesture. Even if they really pissed me off, it's not like I'd wish death on them. Compare this to if I burned a holy book: There would be a large number of people who would wish me specifically dead.

 

[Davey Gaga]

So what you're saying is that the top dogs in the British government have told the police and judges all across Britain to ignore muslims protesting in an offensive/inflammatory etc etc matter, but to arrest and prosecute all white people doing the same?

No, I'm saying there's a double-standard. I've never once proposed an idea of where it came from, all I've done is point out that there's rules for some and rules for others, and said that I think this is wrong.

How would you feel if someone burned the Constitution? Or just went around burning the American flag? Assuming you are an American, you'd find this kind of thing appalling.

Whatever you hold dear in your life, whether it be religion, law, science, theater, etc, you would be pissed to hell if someone burned something you hold in high regard, especially to the extent that they hold their holy books.

You mean like poppies, on Remembrance Day? :dave:

 

[Donald Trump]

No, I'm saying there's a double-standard. I've never once proposed an idea of where it came from, all I've done is point out that there's rules for some and rules for others, and said that I think this is wrong.

Are there seperate rules?
One rule saying you cannot muslimos because they'll go batshit insane, and another rule saying you can offend white people because they won't go batshit insane?
It's not as if burning the Koran is a protest, it's hatred for a whole community.
The poppy burning was against a specific part of society, the army, which is killing muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places.
It's not as if it's only Muslims protesting either, jerome's beloved Celtic made made a similar protest.

I'm not entirely sure why religion has been brought into this.
It's not a religious protest. It's a protest by members of a certain religion against the British Army.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

Are there seperate rules?

It doesn't matter if there's actual separate rules if there's separate treatment. Not that I'm saying there is, I don't know enough about UK law or even what the guy actually did.

It's not as if burning the Koran is a protest, it's hatred for a whole community. The poppy burning was against a specific part of society

How is burning the Koran not a protest? It can easily be a protest against Islam and extremist Muslims (not that the guy in the article did it for this reason). And it certainly is against a specific part of society: Islam. Any part of society is made up of people. That's what society is. By your logic, you could consider protesting the army to be hatred towards a whole community (which it is, otherwise they wouldn't be protesting), those in the army or related to those in the army. They are people, too.

I don't support censorship in any form, but the bigot in the article and the Muslims protesting on that day are no different. They should both be allowed to say whatever they want (short of threats or violence), but they're both bigots. Hell, look at the slogans used in the protests: "Islam will dominate" "Our dead are in paradise, your dead are in hell" That is what an insane bigot says, not what a peaceful protester says. It's not at all different from the "God hates fags" assholes.

Everyone should go out and burn a holy book or shit on a copy of a constitution. Maybe if we do it enough people will stop giving enough of a fuck to try and silence others. Or maybe it will lead to a catastrophic war in which one side is completely erased from this earth. That is fine too.

tl;dr
Everyone should be allowed to say what they want and everyone is also crybaby assholes.

 

[Donald Trump]

How is burning the Koran not a protest? It can easily be a protest against Islam and extremist Muslims (not that the guy in the article did it for this reason). And it certainly is against a specific part of society: Islam. Any part of society is made up of people. That's what society is. By your logic, you could consider protesting the army to be hatred towards a whole community, those in the army or related to those in the army. They are people, too.

Protests have a point. I think burning the Koran has, and was probably intended to have connotations of the big Nazi book barbeque. I dislike resorting Nazis as an example, but I think it's justified in this case. In my opinion it's a show of hatred.
The burning of poppies is targeted at a group of people of different social classes, ethnicities, etc etc. The Army is something people willingly join, the same isn't true of Islam.
I don't think Islam constitutes a specific segment of society. But I think the army is a specific segment.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

Protests have a point. I think burning the Koran has, and was probably intended to have connotations of the big Nazi book barbeque.

Godwin's law strikes again.

Both have the same idea: You're burning something that represents something you dislike. I'm not fond of burning books, but it's no different from burning flags.

In my opinion it's a show of hatred.

Of course it is. You wouldn't be protesting something if you liked it. You can easily hate a religion or an organization or whatever without hating the individuals that make it up.

The Army is something people willingly join, the same isn't true of Islam.

There isn't an Islam gene that makes you a Muslim. You choose to be a part of that religion or to believe in it, even if you were raised in it. The people protesting and the majority of Muslims are well beyond the age to be held accountable for their choices.

I don't think Islam constitutes a specific segment of society. But I think the army is a specific segment.

Society is made up of people. Some of these people are part of the army. Some of these people are part of Islam. Some are both. Both are segments.

Hatred for Islam is no different than hatred for the army. At least people in the army have the excuse that it's their day job and they do need to eat. If you are opposed to one of these things, you should be able to voice your opinion, even if others don't agree with it or are offended.

 

[Donald Trump]

Godwin's law strikes again.

Both have the same idea: You're burning something that represents something you dislike. I'm not fond of burning books, but it's no different from burning flags.

So we agree that it's an act of hatred?

Of course it is. You wouldn't be protesting something if you liked it. You can easily hate a religion or an organization or whatever without hating the individuals that make it up.

I disagree, I don't think protests and hatred are the same thing.
It's possible to protest against the British Army's actions in the Middle East and still support the war in the Falklands.
The Koran burning wasn't a protest against Islam as a concept, but hatred of the followers of that religion. The guy decided to burn something that would cause the most offense and pain to the followers of Islam. He was part of the English Defense League, a lovely group that believes that engerland should be for white people.

There isn't an Islam gene that makes you a Muslim. You choose to be a part of that religion or to believe in it, even if you were raised in it. The people protesting and the majority of Muslims are well beyond the age to be held accountable for their choices.

What exactly are they being held accountable for?
Though I did phrase what I meant rather poorly. If you join the army you are suscribing to set of views. You make the choice that you will be defined as a member of the armed forces, it's the same with any job. By deciding to be a muslim you aren't signing up to be part of this massive monolith that is often made the scapegoat for everything and attracts so much hatred.
The Koran burning made no attempt to differentiate between the extremists who burnt the poppies, and the muslims who had nothing to do with it.

Hatred for Islam is no different than hatred for the army. At least people in the army have the excuse that it's their day job and they do need to eat. If you are opposed to one of these things, you should be able to voice your opinion, even if others don't agree with it or are offended.

I agree with whole freedom of speech thing.
However, I don't think his Koran burning should be called a protest. Though I still have no problem with him expressing his opinion.

 

[unadulteratedawesome]

So we agree that it's an act of hatred?

Yup.

It's possible to protest against the British Army's actions in the Middle East and still support the war in the Falklands.

This is true, but the Koran burning and the war protest were pretty much the same. Neither made a distinction between part of the group and the group as a whole.

He was part of the English Defense League, a lovely group that believes that engerland should be for white people.

I'm not saying I agree with the guy. He and his buddies sound like the neo-nazi movements here in the US.

What exactly are they being held accountable for?

For whatever beliefs and cultural things they're subscribing to. It's not like you can (or should) blame every Muslim for what Islamic terrorists do. But if they subscribe to Islam then they are identifying with some of the beliefs and ideas of Islam, many of which people may disagree with.

The Koran burning made no attempt to differentiate between the extremists who burnt the poppies, and the muslims who had nothing to do with it.

The extremists burning poppies also didn't distinguish between the army and even England as a whole and just the war. Both are on the same level of hatred and bigotry.

 

[Davey Gaga]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13125846

According to the BBC, one of the members of the Muslim group was punished - a £50 fine. In fairness, he was punished, but on the other hand a £50 fine vs 70 days in prison? It's just outrageous.

"The group's website calls on Muslims to disrupt the wedding, describing senior members of the Royal Family as "enemies to Allah and his messenger"."

THE GROUP'S WEBSITE. Not individuals - it is the collective message of the group. That's a frightening message.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

I agree with Stang in saying that I also am sick of religious differences being the "excuse" for acts of violence prejudice or hatred. I suscribe to many things and one of them being a world united and people allowed to be individuals without persecution or prejudice. As maynard Keegan said "people are people so why should it be, you and I shouldnt get along? People are people so why should it be, you should hate me?"