Terry Jones changes tack again, and again

After he recanted yesterday, he now changed tack again and plans to go ahead again with the book burning of "thousands of Korans":
http://www.heute.de/ZDFheute/inhalt/15/0,3672,8109007,00.html (German only, I'm afraid, but will surely show up on english sites soon).
Edit: Oh and he recanted again (F5 on the above article suddenly gives a headline of "Cancellation of the cancellation of the cancellation".

And the first person has been killed outside the German-led NATO post in Faizabad:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/10/quran-burning-nato-troops-shoot

An observation from a German point of view:
He called his thing the "international burn a Koran day" and wrote the date of 9/11/10 on his banner. Now, it's only the Americans that write dates in this way. Everyone else reads this as 9 November, 10.
Which brings me directly to the quote from Heinrich Heine's Almansor: "This was but a Prelude. Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings."
(Dies war ein Vorspiel nur. Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen.). And it's not just me, apparently; this page gives a number of news-related recent findings for the author Heine.

What a moron. I hope they'll get him with red-hot tongs down there in the 'ot place (or does anyone believe such people go to heaven?).

Why doesn't someone just assassinate this douchebag already? He's made it obvious he doesn't have the brains or respect for human life to realize his stunt is putting a whole lot of Americans in danger. We need to start showing the world that we're not all a bunch of backwards religious nutjobs, and I think preventing this genius from endangering hundreds or thousands of lives because of his bigotry would be an excellent way to start.

We need to start showing the world that we're not all a bunch of backwards religious nutjobs

So, then, assassinating someone, murdering him outright -- an approach favored by some backwards religious nutjobs -- is probably not quite the best approach to take, nicht wahr? ;)

I do not agree with Deus' consequence, but the man is definitely not a Christian. Not that I am the definite authority on that, not being a Christian myself, but putting lives of his countrymen and of others on the line to further his ideology must be wrong in just about any denomination. The first person that died because of this stunt was an Afghan demonstrator, shot by the Afghan police outside the Faizabad PRT.

I hate religious extremists! Why doesn't someone just assassinate this douchebag religious extremist? That's what a moderate, broad-minded person would do!

LOL.

Burning a book harms no one.

If a bunch of Muslims attack a NATO base because of this, then the violent Muslims are aggressors. Evidently, someone was forced to shoot one of them in self-defense. I condemn the aggresors.

>2 DeusExLibrus:
On controversial topics, almost every one of your posts I've ever seen contains a shrill, shrieking denunciation of some sort.

On another thread we're being admonished - reasonably - not to blame all Muslims for the actions of a few of them.

The most thunderous outrage is poured on the heads of those who blame all muslims.

Now some Muslims are apparently blaming everyone in Western society for the actions of one member of that society. (Actually, the announced intended actions, which never even happened.)

I await the thunderous outrage to be poured on the heads of those particular muslims.

Hello?

Bigotry?
Religious hate?
Xenophobic backlash?

Hello?

Edited to eliminate calling out specific people by name, which would probably just make them defensive. (Also, it might be seen as...provocative.)

This being the case, Carnophile, as those on the right would so readily let us know, it is our duty as the moderate, reasonable portion of our society to denounce the actions of that one member of our society, no? We are to take actions to distinguish ourselves from that member to note that we don't approve of it and that this is not how our society should be judged and is not representative of us.

Let me hear it.

I definetly do NOT denounce book burning. It harms no one.

If he starts burning people (per the original post), let me know.

For the record: Mapplethorp had the right to do the "Piss Christ" thing, though it offended many, and Jones guy had the right to burn the Koran, though it offends many.

We should collect money for a memorial to be put up in front of his church and list every single person on it that will die because of his idiocy.

#6, Carnophile: Please tell me you are joking. You defend Jones' right to burn books, but deny the Afghans the right to demonstrate and voice their anger at this? Freedom of speech is for Americans only in this case? And a bullet to the head for an Afghan.

http://www.afghanistan-blog.de/?p=3604 has collected all known facts so far. The German command in Potsdam has not confirmed the death of a demonstrator, but reported that a number of demonstrators and Afghan policemen were hurt (the Afghan police is guarding the outer perimeter of the PRT camp). From all I have heard, the Afghan police is not up to European or American standards in procedures and is much more a paramilitary organisation than a civilian police force like in Germany for example. So I would expect them to sometimes rather fire some shots instead of deescalate the situation.

He asked for the bullet. They were throwing rocks.

If one knows that A will happen if one does X, how does that absolve one of moral culpability? If for the sake of argument Muslims, to a T, are maniacs and go off on the slightest provocation, then is it really their fault if they go off if someone intentionally provokes them?

Let's say, for example, I like to hum Tears for Fears. I really like the song Shout and hum it constantly. Also, let's say I have a co-worker who hates Tears for Fears and has a reputation for randomly punching people in the back of the head each time he hears a Tears for Fears melody. I know about this ridiculous disorder. But since I believe that humming my favorite tune doesn't hurt anyone, I proceed to hum away. Predictably, this co-worker punches another co-worker in the back of the head (poor Sally), giving her a concussion. Certainly, the mad man is responsible for the act of punching Sally in the back of the head. Would Mr. Crazy Pants have punched Sally if I didn't go out of my way to hum my favorite Tears for Fears song?

Islam, the insane of the world.

I'm not crazy, you're the one that's crazy.

And that's all that the discussion devolves to on either side.

Terry Jones claims to hate that which is hateful. That hatred makes him full of hate. Poster #2 calls for the assassination of someone because they lack respect for human life. This thread is starting to sound like a snake that eats its own ass.

Burning Korans is clearly offensive, not only to fundamentalist Muslims, but to liberals and moderates alike.

Even if no acts of violence were to be committed in response to the burning, I would still condemn it as unnecessarily provocative.

Pastor Terry Jones = Julian Assange?

>12 GirlFromIpanema:
Carnophile: Please tell me you are joking. You defend Jones' right to burn books, but deny the Afghans the right to demonstrate and voice their anger at this?

GirlFromIpanema, I heard that they were attacking other people and those people were defending themselves. If that's the case then I stand by what I siad.

If they were just peaceably demonstrating and someone shot them, then of course that's morally vile.

Edit: I just checked your oringal link and it says he was shot after a crowd attacked a NATO base. It seems to be implied that the person (allegedly) shot was part of the attacking crowd.

Now let's assess your position: No condemnation for people who attacked other people.

But you hope someone who burned a book roasts in hell.

Sorry, that's incorrect. You hope someone who planned to burn a book, but didn't actually do it, roasts in hell.

In contrast, I, unlike leftists, care about people, not property.

(Couldn't resist.)

8
Well, in as much as Mr. C has thrown down the gauntlet, I can only post a few thoughts before taking my son to baseball practice:

1) Jones in acting in accordance with his (misguided, to my mind) manichean view of the world. He had that blindness that goes with extreme righteousness. I think it's wrong on many levels, but yes, he has the right to do it. I say this without going into an extended discussion of just how sacred the Quran is to Muslims. I also say it without the slightest implication that Jones represents the thoughts of mainstream Christians in this country.

2) There are no doubt provocateurs in the Muslim world that are happy to capitalize on this. They use it to promote a view of the west that is misguided (again, to my mind). The fact that our free press has done half the legwork for them is unfortunate. If you need to hear me say it, then yes, I think violent attacks are an inappropriate response.

Burn a book, drown a witch, boil a heretic.

Carnophile is quite correct in asserting that one of those things is not like the other.

Did anybody catch that article in Der Speigel, an interview with his daughter?

Sounds like the guy has gone mental.

#24 Only the objects are different.

It's not a difference that's insubstantial.

#27

I think the focus on the object is an effort of displacement. The actual criticism focuses on the motivation behind the action (burning, drowning, boiling) carried out on the objects.

I don't disagree with that. You vandalise my car or you assault me or murder me, our law treats those as events of different orders of magnitude. And for good reason.

Which isn't to say that I condone what the asshat is doing. I just support his right to do it.

"The actual criticism focuses on the motivation behind the action (burning, drowning, boiling) carried out on the objects."

Most of the actual criticism in this thread focuses on the possible violent consequences of the action.

Just as an aside--every time I see this topic, I think of the other Terry Jones (here from Life of Brian)

"Now, you listen here! He's not the Messiah; he's a very naughty boy!" :D

> 25 And speaking of Messiah (complexes), I think I posted that Der Spiegel article in some other thread. Megalomaniacal dude's got a screw loose somewhere.

Clearly this Jones is a marginal character who gets most of his understanding of Islam from Jack Chick comics. He came up with this grand scheme fully expecting to be in the vanguard of some sort of anti-Muslim groundswell. It turned out that most other evangelicals wouldn't touch him with a ten foot pole, and now he just looks like some sort of world-class dork (and I'm not just talking about the mustache).

He's been thoroughly repudiated by a united ecumenical community in this country and disowned by his own town. So, of course he goes looking for an out, making up some crazy story that he has exacted a promise that the Cordoba House would be relocated. He has really stepped into it with both feet, and you can bet there is no one in Florida more eager to see the sun rise on September 12th. I for one will be glad when his fifteen minutes of infamy are over.

28
Coincidentally, I've been reading a bit this week on the Leo Frank case. Leo Frank was a Jewish factory owner who was falsely accused of raping a white Gentile woman in Georgia back in 1914. He was dragged from his jail cell, castrated (by some accounts) and lynched by a mob of yahoos. Postcards of the lynching were sold in the town for some years afterwards.

Now, I suppose we could make a couple of observations: 1) while public loathing of Jews in the Deep South may not be as acceptable as it once was, loathing of Muslims among some communities has become a happy substitute; 2) lynching is no longer an option acceptable to the larger community, although I still wouldn't want to be a Muslim American caught on some lonely dirt road in the Deep South after the sun has gone down. 3) We might characterize book burning as lynching by proxy. Let's celebrate this as some kind of progress, or at least a more benign displacement. (Yes, I'm well aware that lynching was not a strictly Southern phenomenon.)

But seriously, the fact that Jones has been so roundly castigated by the community is something that we can be proud of, even if it may come as a shock to him.

>32 christiguc:
When I see the Florida Terry Jones, I can't help but notice his resemblance to cartoon character Asterix. (Visually, of course--in other respects he's not as sympathetic.)

I've tried to upload an image of Asterix but have been too technically deficient to succeed.

#11 For the record: Mapplethorp had the right to do the "Piss Christ" thing

(Minor correction: "Piss Christ" was by Andres Serrano, not Robert Mapplethorpe.)

Carry on.

BOB81, in #31: "Most of the actual criticism in this thread focuses on the possible violent consequences of the action."

Exactly. Well said. I still stand by my opinion that "FREEDOM!" can never mean that I get to do everything I like and bugger the consequences for others.

And since I don't believe in hell, I could not care less who gets tweaked with tongs, hot or not. But Mr. Jones obviously believes in hell --what makes him think he will get to sit to the right of the Lord Jesus for this? That is what I was pointing out.

#34, Makifat: "3) We might characterize book burning as lynching by proxy. Let's celebrate this as some kind of progress, or at least a more benign displacement."

Interesting point of view. But like arson, it can be a foreboding of more sinister actions in the future (which brings me back to Heinrich Heine).

>36 AsYouKnow_Bob: Noted.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39113743/ns/us_news-security

Jones said that his church's goal was "to expose that there is an element of Islam that is very dangerous and very radical."

I think we came to that realization nine years ago today.

But then this bloke is behind the times big time.

@ 38. I still stand by my opinion that "FREEDOM!" can never mean that I get to do everything I like and bugger the consequences for others.

I'll gladly stand by that opinion as well :)

Here's a link that was posted by IfIhadwords to in the Happy Heathens thread on this subject.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-nine-years-tw...

there are several other links to related info , but two more very interesting perspectives should be noted

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/victoria-clark-pastor-terry-jo...

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-a-small-st...

I still stand by my opinion that "FREEDOM!" can never mean that I get to do everything I like and bugger the consequences for others.

Any chance you'd like to offer an alternate definition, then?

>7 BOB81: You'll also notice that I generally come back after a while and give a more reasoned response. Admittedly, it might be a poor forum to use this tack, but most of the time, I'm doing this to demonstrate the uselessness of the form most arguments that take place on American media take, as this is the sort of thing at least 99% of them boil down to.

Jesse: Let's not lose ourselves in philosophical discussions but look at the event on hand.

Obviously most sane people seem to agree with me, otherwise Jones wouldn't have had calls from Washington (various) and by General Petraeus.

>38 GirlFromIpanema:
I still stand by my opinion that "FREEDOM!" can never mean that I get to do everything I like and bugger the consequences for others.

Having read your posts over the past months, I know that you care very much about the future of the people of Afghanistan. So, would you also say that Julian Assange is also abusing his freedom of speech? Would you put him in the same boat, so to speak, as pastor Terry Jones?

Let's not lose ourselves in philosophical discussions but look at the event on hand.

Ummm, given that you're tailoring the definition of a word to frame your argument, I'd say that you've already engaged in a philosophical discussion.

Obviously most sane people seem to agree with me, otherwise Jones wouldn't have had calls from Washington (various) and by General Petraeus.

Note, these are phone calls. Jones has been asked not to proceed with his event. He has not been restrained nor threatened with detriment or restriction of his freedom if he goes through with.

As far as the definition of the word being used, you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

"Note, these are phone calls. Jones has been asked not to proceed with his event. He has not been restrained nor threatened with detriment or restriction of his freedom if he goes through with."

If you read my few contributions to this thread you will note that I have been raging and calling him a moron and questioning his knowledge of the bible but not asked for him to be restrained. Venting my frustration that people (Afghans, German, Americans and others) might die because of his idiocy, when it seemed he might go through with it.
Obviously the officials from Washington were persuasive enough, otherwise he would have gone through with it. Maybe he *does* value the lives of others higher than his own freedom of expression?

---

On the definition, and in a more general way: Of course I know that simply and philosophically put, freedom means that I get to do what I want to do, without anyone hindering me. But in fact this freedom always finds a limit to guarantee a peaceful living together.

Quoting from the German Constitution, just that you see where I am coming from:

Article 2
-Personal freedoms-
(1) Every person shall have the right to free development of his
personality insofar as he does not violate the rights
of others or offend against the constitutional order or the
moral law. (...)
(2) Every person shall have the right to life and physical integrity. Freedom of the person shall be inviolable. These rights may be interfered with only pursuant to a law.

Article 5
-Freedom of expression, arts and sciences-
(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate
his opinions (...). There shall be no censorship.
(2) These rights shall fi nd their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons,
and in the right to personal honour.

OK, I need to have breakfast first. It's not good to start the day without a cup of coffee. And I have to go to the ballot to elect a new mayor. Be back later.

---

Quick addendum:
Seems the Florida police did exercise the law against personal freedoms, too:
"Polizisten kontrollierten Fahrzeuge bei der Anfahrt und hinderten einen Aktivisten daran, einen Koran anzuzünden."
"Police officers checked vehicles (approaching Jones' church) and hindered an activist in setting fire to a koran." http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,717001,00.html

#44 "Any chance you'd like to offer an alternate definition, then?" I think most grown-ups understand what #38 means. And I stand by that opinion too.

#20 I recommend you study the historical event known as "Kristallnacht". That's where book burning leads to.

50> re the Kristallnacht parallel, I don't see it as such. There have been book burnings in the USA before, and most of the folk just assumed the burners were brain-dead or inbred. Hell, didn't they bust up a bunch of Beatles records once? Now, that is sacrilegious.

I'm with Carnophile on this one: people matter, not objects.

#51 I agree absolutely with the sentiment that "people matter, not objects". If book burning were simply about the books themselves, then hell, do it and be done with it, I say.

But it never is, is it? This Jones character is not suggesting burning the Q'ran because of its contents, but because he knows the effect it will have on people, i.e. Muslims. He's using the objects (and in particular, the value they have for a certain group) to get at people. It's an act of belligerent provocation.

A pretty good piece on the Qur'an by someone who actually appears to have read it:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/the-meaning-of-the-koran/

I would add that a part of the issue that largely hasn't been addressed in the media is the absolute reverence that Muslims have for the book, particularly in the original Arabic.* Muslims see the text as the actual word of God, eternal and uncreated and dictated directly to Muhammed through the angel Gabriel. I think there is a difference between how Muslims see the Qur'an and how most (with some exceptions) Christians view the Bible. I believe it is this difference that causes confusion for many in the West as to why Muslims would react so angrily to a threat to burn the book. Because, for them, it is not a book in the way the Bible is for Christians, no matter how divinely "inspired" the Bible is. (Not that a plan to torch the Bible would cause any less of a hullabaloo.)

*Muslims tend to value translations less, inasmuch as they form a kind of interpretation, rather than the living word of God. I assume that Jones was primarily intending to burn translations, although some of those translations were no doubt bilingual.

Is there any sort of language act that is not interpretive?

Only if you are God speaking directly through one of your angels.

#53

Makifat, you've hit the nail right on the head there. I'd go even further - Muslims believe the Q'ran is the "Word of God". Christians similarly believe Jesus is "The Word". The Q'ran holds the same place in Muslim hearts as Jesus does for Christians. Therefore to attack the Q'ran is, for Muslims, like a perceived attack on Jesus to Christians. And I'm sure we all remember the demonstrations, placard-waving, veiled threats, and all that, that greeted "The Last Temptation of Christ" and "Jerry Springer, The Musical".

The point is, Christians can still accept the KJV (and a plethora of other translations) as the word of God. For a Muslim, a translation of the Qur'an from the Arabic infinitely diminishes it.

56
Indeed. The equivalent would be an actual attack on the physical body of Jesus. (That happened once, and we're still talking about it.) I suppose an analogue would be the Catholic reaction if one were to announce the collective desecration of consecrated wafers, which, to them is the actual body of Christ.

Gainesville Muslims planned several counter events, including an outreach to the homeless on Sept. 11, a "Koran 101" lecture at UF and "Know Your Muslim Neighbor" open houses at the city's mosques later in the month. Too bad that General Petraeus and President Obama remarked upon Rev Jones plans and possible Muslim retaliation, but not the measured, mature response of Gainesville Muslims, who, BTW, outnumber Jones followers 30 to 1!

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-09-06/news/os-muslims-koran-violence-uf...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11241340

I suppose this thread is as good a place as any to add the following link.

Talented artist goes into hiding

Almost more troubling than the announcement is the American reaction — in particular, the youngsters who seem to feel it is incumbent upon us to avoid expressing opinions that distress others, and that Norris herself is at fault for the fatwa that has been brought upon her. (Yes, yes, I know. It’s not technically a fatwa. I don’t care.) At some point, to have any kind of character at all, one has to decide not to be a coward.

>60 beardo:
"I suppose this thread is as good a place as any to add the following link."

Almost: http://www.librarything.com/topic/89685

>50 Tid:
I recommend you study the proposition known as "Godwin's Law." That's what absurd rhetoric leads to.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Daniel Huff: 'It's time to fight back against death threats by Islamic extremists'