As a long-time atheist, I think respect for other people is important

[bhikkhu]

...more important than some theoretical free speech.

I don't believe there is any real credible evidence for a deity, but why on earth would I want to burn a koran, or a bible? The books mean nothing to me, but I've never burned a book in my life, much less one that was important to someone else.

Why is the notion of refraining from doing something out of respect for others so hard to get?

In a thousand ways every day we manage our own appearance and behavior to be accepted, to be a part of, and to show respect for the people and societies we live in. Its a part of human civilization and personal maturity.

[Tansy_Gold]

1. As a long time atheist, I think free speech is more important.

And I would say to those who insist on burning someone else's holy book --

"What do you think that accomplishes? Is your god so mean and petty, so selfish and juvenile, that he takes pleasure in this? If the other 'god' doesn't exist or is a false god, don't you think his followers are going to find that out sooner or later? Or is it that you're so insecure yourself in your god that you need to make sure the other one, even if it's false and unreal, gets put down? Oh, never mind. You're a idiot and I'm wasting my time on you. Here, have some matches."


And I would then say to those who insist on avenging the burning of their holy book --

"What do you think that accomplishes? If it's such an affront to your god, why doesn't he take the infidels out with a bolt of lightning? Why would he care anyway? You can print more; it's just a collection of paper and ink after all. You can recite the words and know them forever in your heart and isn't that more important than lopping off the heads of people who never did you any harm? Oh never mind. You're an idiot and I'm wasting my time on you. But first give me the knife."


The problem is, they're all a little bit crazy, and you can't reason with the unreasonable.




Tansy Gold

[hlthe2b]

2. +++++ highly recommend.

[msongs]

3. unfortunately the religously insane are not atheists and btw neither parties to the incident in

question respect each other.

[bhikkhu]

8. True enough, and unfortunate. n/t

[Lyric]

4. Why do you think that what matters (or doesn't matter) to YOU

is good enough for everyone else, too?

Let's say that I have a friend who was tortured by fundamentalist Christian relatives for the "crime" of being born a lesbian. That trauma took years of therapy to heal, and led to an enormous amount of research and reading on the subject of religion. Her reading has led her to believe that religion--and particularly modern Christianity--is an EVIL institution, and that even the benign, seemingly-kind members of that religion are contributing to the evil by helping to make it look legitimate.

Whether you agree with her or not--that's HER opinion, formed from her OWN life experiences. If she wants to burn a Bible as a protest against a religion that she truly believes is evil, why should she not be allowed to do so? How is her sincere, powerful belief that the institution known as "Christianity" is evil any different from a Christian's sincere, powerful belief that all the troubles of the world came about because a woman fell for the lies of a talking snake? And why do we demand respect for one, and refuse to respect the other?

Freedom of speech and freedom of thought work BOTH ways. Perhaps religion is not an issue in my life or your life--but it's an issue for other people who've led different lives and have different values, beliefs, and opinions. We might not agree with their thoughts. They might not be the least bit relative to OUR lives. But that doesn't mean that it's morally or ethically right to forbid people from expressing those thoughts.

[bhikkhu]

15. That is a good point

I know next to nothing about the pastor involved, and he may well have some private history or torment behind the act. I would nevertheless, if I were to speak with him, advise him that surely somewhere in his book he could find some teaching that would lead him to respect others, and refrain from burning things sacred to them.

On the other side, I am fairly sure that I have no capacity to construct the context of the Afghans who killed all those people. From my very safe and comfortable desk, there is very little that I could say to a people who have lived through 40 years of almost uninterrupted war, bombings, suicides, social chaos, famine, disease, almost complete national illiteracy, every form of misery. I would like to walk in their shoes a bit before judging, but I wouldn't even know where to begin...

[Codeine]

5. I don't respect anybody who threatens to lose their shit over a book. nt

[bhikkhu]

11. One thing my stepfather taught me:

everyone has "buttons" that might be pushed, and sometimes people think they are very clever and superior if they discover what those buttons are - but if you push someone's buttons and they act badly, and you knew they would act badly but pushed their buttons anyway, you are as responsible for their actions than they are.

In context, that was just that if I taunted someone until they hit me, knowing that my taunts would make him hit me, then I was not so much the victim as the idiot in the conflict. "Why don't you just punch yourself next time and leave the other kid out if it."

The first offense is becoming in effect the puppetmaster of another, which is a shameful thing to do. The second is directing another's action to a crime, which is a terrible thing to do to a person. The third thing is adopting a position of superiority, as if one's own behavior is beyond reproach, while the "puppet" is relegated to less than human.

[bobbolink]

32. "but if you push someone's buttons and they act badly, and you knew they would act badly but pushed

their buttons anyway, you are as responsible for their actions than they are."

Your stepfather is a very wise man, and, from this statement, I would guess he is the embodiment of peace.

I hope he is still around so you can thank him for me for this wisdom.

:yourock:

[and-justice-for-all]

6. I have no issue with giving respect to others...

however, I do not do the same for their dogma and superstitions. I am Atheist as well, and I have never wanted to burn books of any sort. As silly as it is for them to burn the Quran, it is equally silly for Muslims to get irate about it, as well as for xtians to be peeved about someone burning bibles. That is just my two cents...

[dorkulon]

7. As a longtime human, I think killing people over symbolism is a lot worse

than creating a symbolic offense. The Pastor is a huge, idiotic asshole, but his crime is not even close to that of the murderers of those UN employees, and doesn't excuse it in the slightest.

[Lefta Dissenter]

9. K&R

for this reply.

[arcane1]

12. Especially INNOCENT people!

While I think it's a sign of sheer lunacy to want to kill someone because they blasphemed your religion, I can at least see how the act "makes sense". At least the kooks who want to kill cartoonists or Salmon Rushdie are directing their rage at the actual perpetrators.

But I also agree with many here that this one dipshit pastor's actions were not the one and only reason this horror took place. There are many reasons for the people there to be filled with rage and desperation, and sadly it's all justified :(

[snagglepuss]

10. Respecting others is a non issue. The burning question is what is the

appropriate response when one feels disrespected.

[bhikkhu]

13. Having children, my first thought is "who started it"

...and then once that is sorted out and the instigator realizes what they did wrong and agrees it was a bad idea and to not do it anymore - then we move on to self-control, not being manipulated into bad behavior, not falling for someone's stupid tricks, taking responsibility for one's responses, etc...

It all does come back to respect, in the end.

[chollybocker]

14. Death-by-Religion occurs everyday, all over the planet.

This time, it gains media traction because it's somehow construed as a "debate" between different dogmas. Really, it's just more religious people killing other religious people.

[oberliner]

23. What makes you think the people killed were religious?

Is there any evidence of that?

[customerserviceguy]

16. What about respect for the lives of people

who didn't burn some 'holy' book, yet are wrongly held liable for it?

While I understand that David Petraeus doesn't want radical islamists getting incited by this, I cannot imagine General Eisenhower begging Americans to stop burning copies of "Mein Kampf" because it makes Nazis fight harder.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

17. while respect is important as a social value, lack thereof should not be legally penalized

[bhikkhu]

18. Traditionally the penalties are social

An adult who lacks the concept of respect, or the self control to demonstrate respect where it is appropriate, is quite handicapped in most situations.

How a person like that becomes a pastor, a role that should involve leading by example, teaching, and giving care and aid to the most vulnerable, is beyond me.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. Have you paid attention to who some of the religious "leaders" are in this country?

I wish it were about "leading by example, teaching, and giving care and aid to the most vulnerable", but usually it's about homophobia, trying to outlaw birth control, and telling the megachurch that Jesus wants them to have a second Escalade.

[Warren DeMontague]

19. "some theoretical free speech."?

I'm an Atheist, too. I grew up in the suburbs of Chicago, come from a Jewish family. I remember when the Nazis were fighting to march in skokie. I don't support Nazis, but I support free speech, including theirs. Because free speech is antithetical to everything the Nazis stood for. Stopping them from marching would have been a victory. Letting them march, was for them, the true defeat.

Free speech isn't "theoretical", nor is it a minor, piddling point. Yes, we should respect people. Yes, Terry Jones the Koran-burner is a prick. The same free speech he enjoys allows me to call him a prick.

But I'm not going to excuse the actions of some homicidal maniacs or blame those actions on anyone but the maniacs themselves.

[bhikkhu]

27. Theoretical in this sense:

"In a thousand ways every day we manage our own appearance and behavior to be accepted, to be a part of, and to show respect for the people and societies we live in."

We all both instinctively and consciously moderate our speech and behavior out of respect for others, with or without religion.

As far as blame, as said upthread, having children I am most prone to ask "who started it", and begin the process from their. I am very far from being able to walk in the shoes of the Afghans, and I am pretty sure they are humans rather than maniacs. In any case, I believe that if treated with respect, they would behave with respect in return. 40 years of grinding war, invasions, almost complete national illiteracy, murder of one sort or another shaping most families, a culture of learned violence, way too many young people with no direction and little hope...they need to be left alone at this point, rather than kicked some more.

[Warren DeMontague]

31. That's neither here nor there.

The responsibility for homicidal rioting lies with the homicidal rioters. Period.

[darkstar3]

21. Special pleading.

Why does religion get a pass as something we should respect, when we don't respect nearly any other position held by people we vehemently disagree with?

Let's assume you are pro-choice, which I'm sure is a safe assumption for this board. Do you respect the position of the rabid anti-choice crowd who wants to take away your rights? Do you pull punches with them? Do you hesitate to mock them openly?

What about the people who wish to deny homosexuals their basic human rights? Should we treat them with kid gloves? Do we?

Somehow, it seems that we are all too happy to watch our fellow lefties disrespect people with different political and social views, but it suddenly becomes unacceptable behavior when religion gets involved. It's special pleading, pure and simple.

[JoeyT]

22. Free speech is always more important than respect.

Free speech is a right. Respect is earned.

Free speech also isn't theoretical. The door to banning speech just because it offends someone is closed and it should always remain closed.

Seriously, this isn't that hard of a concept to grasp. If you can ban saying something nasty about a religion, you can ban saying something nasty about a politician or corporation or even the government in general.

Edited to add: Or a war. Or the rich. Or a policy. Or a movement. etc.

[Codeine]

24. Well said.

Nobody has a constitutional right to be respected.

[cali]

25. "theoretical free speech". that tell me all I need to know

and though I agree that there's no need to go out of one's way to offend or anger people, I defend your right to do so.

[bhikkhu]

29. Theoretical in this sense:

Again "In a thousand ways every day we manage our own appearance and behavior to be accepted, to be a part of, and to show respect for the people and societies we live in." We all moderate our speech out of respect in order to live together in peace.

Free speech is a right with responsibilities; if I knew enough about a person, I could exercise my free speech to drive most anyone into a rage, with more or less predictable results. The right to do so may be defended, in theory, as to not do so would be bad as well, but the "speech" itself might nevertheless shamefully stupid.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

33. No, it's a blanket right, not contingent on anything.

I strongly recommend using free speech responsibly, but - apart from some narrow and specific exceptions - there is no actual legal responsibility to do so.

[JoePhilly]

26. But poking others in the eye is so much fun!!!

Especially when I can do it and suffer no direct consequences.

Lots of folks are talking about "demonstrating" their free speech rights. They are correct that you have the right to burn any of these books (or the US flag).

My view is that if you want to really demonstrate your free speech right, do it in a location, using an object, that could get you in real danger.

Most of the folks screaming about this seem to want to be able to use their free speech right to hurt or anger others. THAT is the actual goal, and it really has nothing to do with free speech at all.

The rationale of defending free speech is used to obscure the actual intent.

[guardian]

28. Respect must be earned.

I don't respect the FL pastor book burner. I don't respect a culture that goes bat shit crazy and flies into a wanton murderous rage at every slight

[GeorgeGist]

30. Most people wouldn't equate burning a book with speech.

[Taitertots]

34. I'll only give consideration to the reasonable concerns of other people

Expecting other people to follow their religious tenants is unreasonable and therefore not something that I give respect to. Free expression of thought is something I respect, even when it is something I disagree with. If anything I feel the most unpopular and opposed ideas are the ones that need protecting the most.


"In a thousand ways every day we manage our own appearance and behavior to be accepted, to be a part of, and to show respect for the people and societies we live in. Its a part of human civilization and personal maturity."
This is underscored by the recognition that other people don't have to follow other religions or customs unless a direct harm can be shown. All of those thousands of ways that we manage behavior do not have to be arbitrarily determined by religious tradition, unless that is what a person chooses. Human civilization and personal maturity depend on people being free to make their own live choices, only limited to prevent them from directly harming others. Imposed arbitrary control is the antithesis of civilization.