Burn-A-Koran Day to be held on anniversary of 9/11, tension mounts

[MrPinkPanther]

It really annoys me when people say religion and religious books are the foundation of modern day law, what they are essentially saying is that they would be more than happy to rape and pillage if they didn't believe that god exists. Many species are able to differentiate "right from wrong" (albeit to a lesser extent), not just humans. It's a basic form of natural instinct.

[GommeInc]

It really annoys me when people say religion and religious books are the foundation of modern day law, what they are essentially saying is that they would be more than happy to rape and pillage if they didn't believe that god exists. Many species are able to differentiate "right from wrong" (albeit to a lesser extent), not just humans. It's a basic form of natural instinct.

Not really no? You're looking at it in just a moral stand point. The Bible and many religious texts set the grounds for the existence of legal systems. It wasn't just a divine "you shalt not kill for thou shalt be killed", there were penalties involved which is where Government and judiciary systems come into place, which took it upon themselves to make a more reality based penalty of imprisonment, fines or, in medieval and uncivilised times, death. Penalties which effect those who give a rats arse and those who do not give a rats arse, if that makes sense? Not all countries received their legal perception from the Bible or another Holy text, but a few did and it's believed the UK itself has a legal system based upon religious teachings. They set a moral stand point for civilisation, it's up to the civilisation to do what they want when those morals are broken. It's like a more wide spread version of the phrase "What would Jesus do?", except punishment usually is hush, rather than rub the head with oitment and fragrant oils.

[Apple]

firstly, no he didnt go through with it. secondly, he said hes not against muslims, only muslim extremists. his logic for burning the burning is completely faulty. third, why would you? that seems random, eh? its not a bunch of korans that killed your family, the koran didnt tell anyone to fly planes into the twin towers. it was extremists who just happen to be muslim. youll say "oh but they use the koran to justify their ideals", but so do extremists of every other religion. christians have justified killing millions of people through the bible throughout history, but no ones burning bibles. the thing is that even without the koran they would have attacked our country, they use it because of peoples' dedication to the religion and they can brainwash people with it.

and i highly highly doubt that anyone who lost family members in 9/11 would support this, seeing as it just makes more tension between us and the middle east terrorists and makes them want to attack us again even more. doesnt make much sense.


i think people need to move away from the argument that he has a right to do it. yes, he has a right to do it, thats a fact, but thats not what the debate is about. the debate is should he, not can he. people in the middle east don't have nearly the same media that we do, so when they hear that there's going to be a koran burning in america they dont get much else context. they dont know that the very large majority of americans are against the idea, they probably think we all are looking forward to it. the media has blown up this story so much that like it or not, this crazy priest now represents all americans.

The only reason I would burn loads of Qur'an's is to show my disrespect to the muslim extremists. You can say it would be unfair to the non-extremist muslims but in all honesty I think all religions are a load of crap so I don't give a toss. Yes they are entitled to believe in what they want and you would be right in saying that we should respect their beliefs but taking in mind all the problems religion has caused in the world I have absolutely no respect for it at all. Perhaps it is for the better, without religion things may be much more uncivilised but how do we know? They seemed to be doing perfectly alright before Jesus supposedly came to earth?

But back on topic, as mentioned; say anything was to happen to any of my family and it was a Muslim extremist that was responsible, the only way to show massive disrespect to the Muslim extremists and annoy them greatly would be to burn their holy book and make sure the media are well informed. However unlike the US holy man I wouldn't be calling it off.

[MrPinkPanther]

Not really no? You're looking at it in just a moral stand point. The Bible and many religious texts set the grounds for the existence of legal systems. It wasn't just a divine "you shalt not kill for thou shalt be killed", there were penalties involved which is where Government and judiciary systems come into place, which took it upon themselves to make a more reality based penalty of imprisonment, fines or, in medieval and uncivilised times, death. Penalties which effect those who give a rats arse and those who do not give a rats arse, if that makes sense? Not all countries received their legal perception from the Bible or another Holy text, but a few did and it's believed the UK itself has a legal system based upon religious teachings. They set a moral stand point for civilisation, it's up to the civilisation to do what they want when those morals are broken. It's like a more wide spread version of the phrase "What would Jesus do?", except punishment usually is hush, rather than rub the head with oitment and fragrant oils.

Laws are based upon morals which are in turn based upon natural instinct. No current religion can claim to have been the founder of laws because the fact is that "laws" existed in a primitive form since the start of civilisation. For example even in tribal regimes if a man or a woman slept with more than one person he or she could be stoned to death, this is far before organised religion. Laws like many things evolve over time in response to a countries social situation so of course religion influences it, as does other elements such as the monarchy. My point is that religion is not the foundation of law because law predates religion, the idea that you should not kill those who do not wish to kill you is build into the human psyche and in fact it is religious teaching that has often altered this as can be seen by all the religious based wars over the years. If someone honestly believes that the sole reason people don't kill each other is because of a 2000 year old text then he or she has a very warped view of the world indeed.

[RedStratocas]

The only reason I would burn loads of Qur'an's is to show my disrespect to the muslim extremists. You can say it would be unfair to the non-extremist muslims but in all honesty I think all religions are a load of crap so I don't give a toss. Yes they are entitled to believe in what they want and you would be right in saying that we should respect their beliefs but taking in mind all the problems religion has caused in the world I have absolutely no respect for it at all. Perhaps it is for the better, without religion things may be much more uncivilised but how do we know? They seemed to be doing perfectly alright before Jesus supposedly came to earth?

But back on topic, as mentioned; say anything was to happen to any of my family and it was a Muslim extremist that was responsible, the only way to show massive disrespect to the Muslim extremists and annoy them greatly would be to burn their holy book and make sure the media are well informed. However unlike the US holy man I wouldn't be calling it off.

so im assuming if a christian killed your family, youd be burning a bunch of bibles right? the thing is that we already know how to "annoy" them if thats what you wanna call it. weve been "annoying" them the past 3 or 4 decades, ya know, with occupying their country and such. really i dont see what burning the koran accomplishes? youre saying you understand why theyd do it but thats just because you understand their frustration or feelings about 9/11, i get that, but logic says it doesnt accomplish a thing. passion shouldnt replace reason, we'd live in a pretty ridiculous world if that were the case. like i understand that if a guy comes home and finds his wife in bed with another man, hed wanna shoot him in the throat, but if you look at it from a rational perspective rather than a purely emotional one, youd see that nothing good could come of that decision. the same thing with burning the koran, i understand striving for revenge, but name one good thing thatll come of it. i honestly am searching for one single reasonable good thing that could come from it, i cant think of one.

[GommeInc]

Laws are based upon morals which are in turn based upon natural instinct. No current religion can claim to have been the founder of laws because the fact is that "laws" existed in a primitive form since the start of civilisation. For example even in tribal regimes if a man or a woman slept with more than one person he or she could be stoned to death, this is far before organised religion. Laws like many things evolve over time in response to a countries social situation so of course religion influences it, as does other elements such as the monarchy. My point is that religion is not the foundation of law because law predates religion, the idea that you should not kill those who do not wish to kill you is build into the human psyche and in fact it is religious teaching that has often altered this as can be seen by all the religious based wars over the years. If someone honestly believes that the sole reason people don't kill each other is because of a 2000 year old text then he or she has a very warped view of the world indeed.

And natural instincts are? Do you have them written down, or are they your own perception of natural instinct? Notice the difference - laws are individual and society based, and synthetic, morals are also written down and are individual/society based, and also synthetic within the understanding of what a moral could be (a right and a wrong), but natural instinct varies from person to person and is down to opinion and individual actions. So no, it's incredibly unlikely natural instinct was the foundation for modern day law, they were just used to pick out which instincts should be repressed and punished, because some people may have the natural instinct to kill someone they do not like, but according to you this is perfectly fine as it's natural to feel this, when infact it's immoral to kill another human being when they have just as much right to life as you (and here comes Human Rights which fill the gap). Natural instinct could be to kill. Murderers murder due to natural instinct and natural instincts are not written down anywhere, so your argument doesn't make any sense, and your examples leave alot to be desired as they only take the view point of what you believe, rather than the bigger picture :/

Religion was the bridging gap for modernisation, I agree that some instincts like not wanting to bludgeon a neighbour to death with a rock exist down to human instinct and understanding, but natural instinct alone did not make modern day law when it has no strong foundation on which to set any laws itself, as they vary too much to be of any use. Religion exploded in an orgy of power years and years ago, as is natural seeing as most religions follow the "spread the word" philosophy, so when civilisations start to grow, they needed a way to keep order and thus laws were created, and because religion was around and at its peak, the judiciary system took reference of morals and religious laws from the 1200 hundreds. Heck, swearing on the Bible should be a huge clue, as you're effectively taking an oath saying you will abide the laws written in the book and will not lie otherwise you're breaking many laws written in the Bible and straight off to hell with you. Religion also made it easy to understand what was right or wrong, as it underlined them all which was a first seeing as hardly any countries even understood what was right or wrong. The UK is one example, and obviously the US as they did not exist :/

So to end, I shall take your last sentence and modify it:

"If someone honestly believes that the sole reason people do not kill each other is not down to the Bible or other religious texts, then he or she knows little of the laws of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and many countries across the globe, nor any understanding of History."

[alexxxxx]

And natural instincts are? Do you have them written down, or are they your own perception of natural instinct? Notice the difference - laws are individual and society based, and synthetic, morals are also written down and are individual/society based, and also synthetic within the understanding of what a moral could be (a right and a wrong), but natural instinct varies from person to person and is down to opinion and individual actions. So no, it's incredibly unlikely natural instinct was the foundation for modern day law, they were just used to pick out which instincts should be repressed and punished, because some people may have the natural instinct to kill someone they do not like, but according to you this is perfectly fine as it's natural to feel this, when infact it's immoral to kill another human being when they have just as much right to life as you (and here comes Human Rights which fill the gap). Natural instinct could be to kill. Murderers murder due to natural instinct and natural instincts are not written down anywhere, so your argument doesn't make any sense, and your examples leave alot to be desired as they only take the view point of what you believe, rather than the bigger picture :/

Religion was the bridging gap for modernisation, I agree that some instincts like not wanting to bludgeon a neighbour to death with a rock exist down to human instinct and understanding, but natural instinct alone did not make modern day law when it has no strong foundation on which to set any laws itself, as they vary too much to be of any use. Religion exploded in an orgy of power years and years ago, as is natural seeing as most religions follow the "spread the word" philosophy, so when civilisations start to grow, they needed a way to keep order and thus laws were created, and because religion was around and at its peak, the judiciary system took reference of morals and religious laws from the 1200 hundreds. Heck, swearing on the Bible should be a huge clue, as you're effectively taking an oath saying you will abide the laws written in the book and will not lie otherwise you're breaking many laws written in the Bible and straight off to hell with you. Religion also made it easy to understand what was right or wrong, as it underlined them all which was a first seeing as hardly any countries even understood what was right or wrong. The UK is one example, and obviously the US as they did not exist :/

So to end, I shall take your last sentence and modify it:

"If someone honestly believes that the sole reason people do not kill each other is not down to the Bible or other religious texts, then he or she knows little of the laws of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and many countries across the globe, nor any understanding of History."

i disagree. i think that it is instinct. most things which are illegal are either things that hurt someone, kill someone or damage, tresspass or taking away of property. the first 2 are simple because it physically hurts, the second set are crimes that affect someone's property, which causes stress and grief to people - we can see that this is a natural instinct that cats and dogs become distressed when you take away their toys/food and it's the same for babies! I'm sure no one has told a baby that is wrong for people to take away their toys - but when it happens they become distressed.

to kill is a natural instinct - but it is also natural instinct for humans to become distressed when close family/friends get killed.

[GommeInc]

i disagree. i think that it is instinct. most things which are illegal are either things that hurt someone, kill someone or damage, tresspass or taking away of property. the first 2 are simple because it physically hurts, the second set are crimes that affect someone's property, which causes stress and grief to people - we can see that this is a natural instinct that cats and dogs become distressed when you take away their toys/food and it's the same for babies! I'm sure no one has told a baby that is wrong for people to take away their toys - but when it happens they become distressed.

to kill is a natural instinct - but it is also natural instinct for humans to become distressed when close family/friends get killed.

Not sure where you're commenting on, but these still vary from person to person. Loads of babies don't care if a toy is taken away, nor do cats as they tend to have a "forget and move on" mechanicism in their mind. Like if you tell a child to turn around and you remove the toy, many wouldn't notice it's missing It's only when you make it obvious and turn it into a big thing, depending on the child, baby or animal you're taunting.

Uncivilised society, before any actual legal system came into place, dealt with things differently depending on the area you lived in. Towns and villages had seperate rules and governments as there was no way for a central Government to form a system because communication was impossible. They arguably had both a moral/religious understanding, or as PinkPanther said, a human instinct/understanding view point (a basic but not entirely understood view of right and wrong). This happened around the time the Bible (in the UK) was at its peak. A good example could be with King Henry VIII, afterall, I am sure it's common knowledge with everyone now that King Henry VIII was legally binded by religion and law, which is where you get the Church of England, because he couldn't divorce due to the heavy influence the religion at the time had on him and the country, and its legal system.

A good analogy could be this:

Human Instinct = Raw materials.
Religion = Used the raw materials to create a foundation e.g. gave a greater understand of right and wrong - 10 Commandments, religious anologies and examples etc etc.
Law = A building built upon that foundation.

[[Jay]]

Its important to remember that laws were not written before religion, in a way books like the Bible and Koran were the first written laws. As time went on laws were then written, when the laws were written most came from religious books as during that time many people believed in god and not science.

[Jordan]

Saw this in the news...

An Australian lawyer tore pages from the Koran and the Bible and smoked them on YouTube, days after a US pastor's threat to burn Islam's holy book triggered deadly protests and global condemnation.

In a 12-minute clip entitled "Bible or Koran -- which burns best?" Alex Stewart, who belongs to an atheist group, holds up the Christian and Muslim holy books before tearing out pages and smoking them.

At one point he lights what looks like a joint rolled from a page from the Bible, leans back after inhaling heavily and says "Holy".

The video, which has been deleted, was posted on YouTube over the weekend, coinciding with the ninth anniversary of the September 11 attacks and coming after American pastor Terry Jones threatened to torch 200 copies of the Koran.

Stewart's employer, the Queensland University of Technology, said the research lawyer is on leave following a meeting on Monday.

"The university is obviously extremely, extremely unhappy and disappointed that this sort of incident should occur," vice-chancellor Peter Coaldrake told reporters.

Stewart's video, in which he describes the Bible and Koran as "just books", is deeply hurtful to Muslims, said Sheik Muhammad Wahid, president of the Islamic Association of Australia.

"There is no need for this kind of thing, just to create disunity and disharmony among people living in Australia," Wahid told Australian news agency AAP.

Stewart, an assistant organiser with a group called Brisbane Atheists, refers to the proposed burnings of the Koran in the United States in his video.

Florida firebrand Jones cancelled the event -- a protest against plans to build a mosque near New York's Ground Zero site -- but the furore led to two deaths in Afghan protests and strong worldwide condemnation.

"With respect to books like the Bible and the Koran, whatever, just get over it," Stewart says in the video which has since been deleted from YouTube.

In comments to Brisbane's Courier Mail, Stewart defended his right to freedom of speech.

"The video was a joke video, of course," he told the paper, adding that he was smoking grass clippings rather than marijuana.

"People do this stuff all the time and if people get really upset about this then they're taking it far too seriously."