A momentary irritation on my part with reading a thread mired in confusion. I'm not really a great burner of books, or even threads. — unenlightened

Spoilsport

Someone burned a Quran in London yesterday. Another man attacked him with a knife in retaliation. — flannel jesus

Are there good reasons, today, to burn a Quran? — flannel jesus

How is it not obvious that both actions are violent and neither can be condoned?

Sure, the knife attack is more recognizable as violence, and a more objectively and directly harmful form.

But as for the burning of the Quran. Can the action be justified by the pretense of free speech, delivering, for example, a political anti-terrorism or anti-barbaric cultural practices message, when the message itself---patently offensive, and known to be offensive, or why do it?---is a barbaric practice, intended to terrorize an entire group of believers for the (admittedly contemptible) beliefs and activities of their most extreme few? [And if one believes that all Muslims are barbaric terrorists, that belief is at best naive, but more likely rooted in fear manifesting as hatred].

Can one justify burning the Gospels to protest Christian White Supremacy? Or the Torah to protest the actions of fanatical Zionists? Or the Vedas to protest Hindu Nationalists? (There are examples of violence perpetrated from all three of those groups) I say no, for the same obvious reasons. We cannot justify barbarism and terrorism if it's done by our team, while condemning it when it's done by a team we (even if justifiably) despise or fear.

Isn't this the kind of hypocrisy Jesus warned against?

One could find passages of both mercy and violence in most scriptures; just as you can find both violent and peaceful devotees in all religions.

The burning of the Quran is only an F you to muslims, hiding behind the pretense of political activism. The fact that we can openly entertain such a question without feeling dissonant reflects that islamaphobia has become our conventionally accepted response to the problem of terrorism in Islam. Islamophobia is not going to resolve that problem. If anything, it'll exasperate and perpetuate it. Jewish Holocaust survivors should hate Nazis, even if that meant the majority of early 20th C Germans, but not all Germanic people, most of them engaged in a war against the Nazis.

If the LBGT community called upon its members to burn copies of Paul's letter to the Roman's, I don't see how that could be seen as not offensive to the millions of Christians who might cherish that scripture, and have no ill regard for LGBT community; and I don't see how burning Romans would advance their cause.

If the LBGT community called upon its members to burn copies of Paul's letter to the Roman's, I don't see how that could be seen as not offensive to the millions of Christians who might cherish that scripture, and have no ill regard for LGBT community; and I don't see how burning Romans would advance their cause. — ENOAH

Maybe those who have no ill regard for the LGBT community should reconsider their cherishement of certain verses of Paul's Letter to the Romans. Maybe the offense taken by the LGBT community over the verses that call their love shameful is more legitimate than the offense taken by Christians who cherish those verses when those verses are burned.

If the LBGT community called upon its members to burn copies of Paul's letter to the Roman's, I don't see how that could be seen as not offensive to the millions of Christians who might cherish that scripture, and have no ill regard for LGBT community; and I don't see how burning Romans would advance their cause. — ENOAH

Let me ask you something:

If a group of LGBT people did burn Paul's letters, and then a group of Christians arrived and began attempting to murder them by stabbing them which would be closer to your response?

a) How dare they burn that Scripture! They deserve what's coming to them for their transgression!

Or

b) These Christians is batshit insane and we must arrest these people and investigate what is being taught in their churches.

I'm thankful to live in a society where violence is not considered an acceptable response to provocative, non-violent behavior.

The question is, are there good reasons to justify the burning; not is the stabbing righteous (which, it is not); nor are jihadists acceptable (which, they are not)

Maybe. But end of the day, the burning of Romans is still not a functional response to the hypothetical conflict between the hypothetical Christians and the hypothetical LGBT.

Definitely not (a); but just because these hypothetical Christians are insane, why is burning their literature the solution. Especially knowing they're insane enough to perceive it as a stabbing (which, it is not).


I hope you didn't read condonation of the stabbing in condemnation of the burning.

With respect, it's that kind of wilfull blindness (likely rooted in fear and hatred, even if justifiable) which makes peace so difficult. Isn't that the end goal?

Maybe for some, the burning is not intended as a step toward resolving the problem of jihadism; but rather, just a disguised, legal, form of stabbing Muslims. Getting revenge.
Maybe for some revenge is a good reason for burning books. I just don't think so.

How is it not obvious that both actions are violent and neither can be condoned? — ENOAH

Of course it's not obvious. Violence is about physical harm to a human. If I burn my own book that I bought, it's not the same as punching you. Me burning a book I own is the moral equivalent of my burning some kindling I bought.

If I burn my own book that I bought, it's not the same as punching you — flannel jesus

It's not the same as punching me. No argument there. But I would speculate that the burning of the Quran was not done in the spirit of educating, but rather, violating. Violating does not have to include physical harm. And your question was whether there are "good reasons" to burn. So even in your last hypothetical about burning a book you bought; short of giving some cute response like, fuel or kindling, what would be a good reason. And to be clear, we dont even need to approach it as a moral question, but as a straight functional one. Assuming the underlying unwritten in your OP: Muslims are the kind of scary people who will stab you for burning the Quran, how can we stop this problem and livr in peace? I just don't think burning the Quran is going to stop it. If violating Muslims is a "good reason" (which perhaps for many it is) then yes, there is a good reason to burn through book. I just think the end goal is peace, and thus don't think violating Muslims is a good reason.

And your question was whether there are "good reasons" to burn. So even in your last hypothetical about burning a book you bought; short of giving some cute response like, fuel or kindling, what would be a good reason. — ENOAH

What did you think about it as a challenge?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/969271

There would have been a time when burning a Bible would result in death or torture or imprisonment in the West. We now have a religion that has grown (predominantly) tolerant - modified by modernity and consistent exposure to secular ideas.

Some of my Islamic and apostate acquaintances argue that Muslims need to be exposed to as much book burning and blasphemous drawings and scantily clad women as possible in order to wear away the layers of antediluvian thinking. I guess they are taking the Quentin Crisp view of tolerance - that it comes out of exposure and boredom.

Irshad Manji, the Islamic commentator I quoted earlier puts it like this:

Muslims need to wake up. They also need to start drinking wine, embrace any and all homoerotic tendencies, write some poetry and for the most part free themselves from the fundamentalist chains they have created (for themselves and everyone else!).The Muslim world will only be free when bars fill the streets and women show off their natural, feminine beauty. Muslims need to grow up and stop expecting everyone to be mindless sheep before a 1,400-year-old oral tradition. Nakedness will free Dar-el-Islam!

I don't know it this is the answer, but I understand the principle. Letting them remain murderous custodians of an ancient and unexamined faith is probably not going to end well either.

It's hopeful, to me, that the Muslim community has those voices that are trying to push them forward. The idea that the international Muslim community doesn't need to move forward is insane to me.

Yes. And predictably just her saying this kind of thing is enough to have made her a target for assassination. So the idea that it's just book burning that leads to murder is not correct. Say the wrong thing, write the wrong thing and some part of this religion is likely to try to kill you.

Yup.

What I was most surprised by is, in the wake of all these killings of people showing drawings of muhammad, the US Supreme Court features a sculture of Muhammad. So why are these idiots killing people over it?

↪Patterner Maybe. But end of the day, the burning of Romans is still not a functional response to the hypothetical conflict between the hypothetical Christians and the hypothetical LGBT. — ENOAH

There doesn't seem to be a conflict between the two groups in your scenario. The LGBT people are pointing out that certain verses are evil, and should not be part of a religion based around an all-loving deity. A good response to their action would be, "You're right. Those verses are wrong, and should have been removed long ago." Anyone who has a problem with what they do is the party in the wrong. Worrying about offending them is much like worrying about offending some pre-Civil War Americans by burning copies of state laws that allow slavery. Sure, they got mad. But it was still the right thing to do.

Some of my Islamic and apostate acquaintances argue that Muslims need to be exposed to as much book burning and blasphemous drawings and scantily clad women as possible in order to wear away the layers of antediluvian thinking. I guess they are taking the Quentin Crisp view of tolerance - that it comes out of exposure and boredom. — Tom Storm

That's a good point. If that was the spirit of the OP's consideration; I get it. Perhaps I was wrong to read it as latent bullying in response to (pathological) fanaticism.

What did you think about it as a challenge? — flannel jesus

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. Maybe I addressed it above?

Worrying about offending them is much like worrying about offending some pre-Civil War Americans by burning copies of state laws that allow slavery. Sure, they got mad. But it was still the right thing to do. — Patterner

I was reading the book burning as having no positive value, but only as a gesture of offense. After reading Tom Storms above, I see that there could be value in reforming fanaticism.

So to refine my thought. If burning the Quran is intended only to offend, I see no good in that. If it is to demonstrate against, and reform fanaticism, yes.

Ironically, I see I was the one willfully blinded.

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. Maybe I addressed it above? — ENOAH

You did

:up:

So to refine my thought. If burning the Quran is intended only to offend, I see no good in that. If it is to demonstrate against, and reform fanaticism, yes. — ENOAH

Quran or Bible, if you burn the whole thing, you're probably just trying to cause trouble. Burning a specific part means you have a specific concern. That can be addressed. At least discussed.

Although I don't know if any of it matters to Muslims. If Cat Stevens can call for Salmon Rushdie's execution, then I wouldn't be surprised if the religion has an All Or Nothing attitude. But I really don't know. If I know any Muslims personally, I'm not aware of it.

If Cat Stevens can call for Salmon Rushdie's execution — Patterner

If Cat Stevens--Mr. Peace Train--can be so radicalized, then yes, maybe Tom Storm's reasoning is not just functional but necessary.

I agree.