Burning books is now considered an "act of violence"

I came across this article from the International Herald Tribune:

www.iht.com...

Orthodox Jewish youths burn New Testaments in Israel

JERUSALEM: Orthodox Jews set fire to hundreds of copies of the New Testament in the latest act of violence against Christian missionaries in the Holy Land.

Or Yehuda Deputy Mayor Uzi Aharon said missionaries recently entered a neighborhood in the predominantly religious town of 34,000 in central Israel, distributing hundreds of New Testaments and missionary material.

I read the entire article twice, looking for some reference to violence... but nothing. Apparently students went door to door and asked for the New Testament, then put them all into a big pile and burned them. Nothing in the article mentions any sort of aggression, assault or anything else that would warrant the phrase the article opened with, "act of violence."

This seems to be a hint at a larger issue that's coming soon to a country / city / court near you. People are being brought to court over using the word "cult," and are being called violent for burning books. It's not too long before you are called a murderer or rapist for speaking your mind. How much longer until these trivial offenses are punishable?

reply to post by scientist


Well, I certainly can't say I agree with what the Jews were doing, but I absolutely support their right for free speech. If they want to burn the new testament, that's their right. Thank god that's not happening here in the US (yet.) Some Pantera fan burnt several bibles outside a church where I go, because of the lyrics to a Pantera song, and nothing happened to him 'cept getting yelled at by the pastor.

books should not be burned..even the most ridiculous of them all.
they are all of some value.

Originally posted by fiorano
books should not be burned..even the most ridiculous of them all.
they are all of some value.

I agree. I don't think booking burning and free speech are the same thing, you can disagree and protest ideas in a book, but why burn it?

Wasteful, adding more carbon to the air and not to mention all the other uses that a book can be used for.. door stopper, toilet paper, chew toy..etc. Recycle don't burn.

Burning books does seem extreme and violent to me, it's very old world thinking of if you disagree, destroy it, instead of using intellect to combat it.

In a sense the destruction of any work of literature is an act of violence. In the act of burning the book you are saying that one person has no right to view the information contained within that volume.

In itself the act of burning a book is an act of violence because it is a form of censorship. This is something that the world does not need. Everyone should have the freedom to view literature and the ability to make up their own judgement about the information contained.

To qualify that this is not an act of violence by definition that no one was injured by the act is while technically correct is however flawed. Someone who may have picked up that very book, now that this book has been destroyed has not the opportunity to gain knowledge from this work. Even if the work is in large a work of fiction it may benefit someone in ways that are incomprehensible in the future. To deny knowledge to anyone is itself a crime against humanity.

The argument could be stated that someone could have used the work to decide to become a serial killer however without the text to guide the individual the choice is not able to be made by the person. Therefore the denial of knowledge and the acceptance of ignorance is given.

reply to post by scientist


You read the rest of the article? Bombings? Arsons? In light of the situation at hand, this gesture is a threat directed at the messianic community. These sorts of book-burnings have always been an intimidation tactic against the "undesirables" that the book represents.

I wonder what kind of hubbub there'd be on this thread if it were Muslims burning the Torah.

Originally posted by whatukno
To qualify that this is not an act of violence by definition that no one was injured by the act is while technically correct is however flawed.

I still dont understand how this is violence. Preventing someone access to knowledge is bad, of course.. but how is it violent? By the same logic, I could say that anyone denied a library card was violently assaulted.

Anyone that asks a question in class, but doesn't receive an answer, is a victim of violence. See the error in logic? Perhaps it would be useful to define violence:

vi·o·lence (v-lns)
n.
1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
2. The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
3. Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
4. Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
5. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
6. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.

1. burning a book is not a physical force (on second though, yes it is a physical act of violence... on a book. The same way when you drive, you are committing an act of violence on the asphalt. And when you shave, you are committing an act of violence on your hair.)
and alas, #5 does in fact mention violence to text directly.

However, the article states:

act of violence against Christian missionaries in the Holy Land.

so was this an act of violence against people (Christian missionaries), or violence against books? To say that burning a book is not a form of free speech, I whole heartedly disagree with a passion.

Burning a flag is freedom of speech.
Burning a copy of the 9/11 report is freedom of speech.
Burning a copy of Harry Potter is freedom of speech...

so why is burning a Bible not freedom of speech (or any other book for that matter)?

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


yes, I read the article. It doenst say anywhere how the book burning was linked to violence. It only says:

Earlier this year, the teenage son of a prominent Christian missionary was seriously wounded when a package bomb delivered to the family's West Bank home went off in his hands.

Last year, arsonists burst into a Jerusalem church used by Messianic Jews and set the building on fire, raising suspicions that Jewish extremists were behind the attack. No one claimed responsibility, but the same church was burned down 25 years ago by ultra-Orthodox Jewish extremists.

All 100% speculation, and essentially tying unrelated acts into one grand conspiracy without proof or facts. Just like the US government does to "terrorists." It's all about fear mongering, and dividing people even more.

I wonder what kind of hubbub there'd be on this thread if it were Muslims burning the Torah.

and what does it matter? I'm talking about burning books, regardless of the words printed on the pages.

[edit on 21-5-2008 by scientist]

reply to post by scientist


To use your quoted definition of violence directly it is the 4th definition of the world violence that can be utilized here.

The persons that are burning the books are indeed using "Abusive or unjust exercise of power." in that they are denying another person the access to the knowledge contained in the book that is being destroyed. Now I agree that no assault has been committed by act alone in destroying the book. Most certainly there exists an act of violence in destroying the work of someone else and destroying the ability of someone to gain access to that published work in order to benefit themselves with it.

And yes someone that was denied a library card is indeed a victim of violence in the case of stated definition #4 mentioned above.

Also your example of burning a flag by definition does not apply within the scope of this argument because to burn a flag in effigy is to exercise the freedom of speech against an ideology, while to burn a book is to deny the right of that piece of information to get to the hands of a prospective reader, and thus the person that is now unable to obtain that copy of the book because it has been destroyed is the victim of an act of violence subject to the fourth definition that you used above.

Violence does not have to require bloodshed in order to have been committed. To suppress information in a way as to make it utterly and completely unattainable to an individual whom may have cause or will to inform themselves with it is an act of violence because without that information that person is not able to grow in that specific instance.

You make a strong argument, but I am not sold. I just cannot see how burning a book is violent, yet burning a flag is not.

What if they are burning the LAST flag of a kind, is that not preventing future generations information (assuming it's the last flag in existence) - and therefore violence? If so, then the only difference between burning a flag, and burning a last flag would be the supply of flags.

Likewise, burning a book that has 1,000,000 other copies in existence is not preventing others from gaining knowledge.

Another example: what if I go out and buy my own book, just for the purpose of burning it. If there are millions of other copies around, is it still violence? What if it's the last copy? Violence?

reply to post by scientist


It is the intention behind the act that makes it violent or not. Yes you would be commiting an act of violence if you would destroy the last flag of some country. Just as it would be a violent act to destroy the Mona Lisa.

To destroy your own copy of a book however is not a violent act because that is your personal property to do with as you wish.

The difference between destroying a flag for the perpose of freedom of speech and destroying a book has different conentations because of the intent involved.

In the article you origionaly posted they were destroying books that were to be used by christian missionaries. This is a violent act because they are destroying tools to be used by an opposing point of view religiously as to not allow the missionaries access to these books to do their jobs.

If they however just went and bought 1000 copies of the new testement in order to destroy them in effigy this would be not an act of violence but a expression of freedom of speech. They own the books themselves and as the owner of the property they would have full freedom to do with the litterature whatever they see fit.

Furthermore to reiterate #4 of the definition of the word violence they went around in cars with loudspeakers to round up the distributed works for the perpose of destroying them. The persons that received the books themselves were not involved with the torching of the books but a select few were. This is a violent act because it had the sole perpose of destroying material given to others for their education.


[edit on 5/21/2008 by whatukno]

reply to post by whatukno


thanks for the continuation. I can certainly see your point, although I'm not convinced that this particular scenario was "violent." Yes, they asked for the books via megaphone, but it doesn't say they forced anyone to give the books over. Sounds more like the missionaries passed the books out, then they were collected up and burned by others. It's not like they forcefully removed the books, or forced people to turn them over with threats or etc. At least, it doesn't say anything like that in the article.

I do agree on the intent though - I suppose if it is done out of suppressing information, it's different than freedom of speech, I'll certainly agree on that... however defining it as violence against people (missionaries) is still inaccurate, and somewhat of an alarmist statement.

I did learn something today though after looking at the definition of violence.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

If Muslims want to print out a copy of the Torah and burn it, why should it bother me? If they want to burn a handwritten one, those take ages to make and are very expensive, but if they're prepared to pay for it, and the scribe who put in hours of work is prepared to sell one for that purpose, I won't stop them.

The missionaries may understandably be upset. Perhaps they should ask book recipients to first sign a contract saying they won't destroy the books. But without a specific contract, if you give away an item I don't think you have any say in what the recipient can do with it.

Originally posted by mr. wildflowers
Well, I certainly can't say I agree with what the Jews were doing, but I absolutely support their right for free speech. If they want to burn the new testament, that's their right.

As far as I'm concerned, "in pursuance of" the Constitution & upholding laws goes, I fully support their Right to Free Speech...But the book burnings would be a violation of others' Right to Free Speech & Free Press. Therefore, I'd bring them up on charges for destruction of intellectual property & censorship equal to Hitler's book burnings (deliberate arson). Not a crime of "violence," per se, but the crime of arson against Civil Rights.

Originally posted by whatukno
It is the intention behind the act that makes it violent or not.

Personally, I wouldn't interpret it that way: Just as intent is only one motivation or means to commit a crime, that doesn't make intent itself a crime. That's like a "hate crime" is only a crime motivated by hate...Hate is the motivation, but is not the crime itself. Personally, I would suspect that they were more Zionist than Orthodox, just to make a bad impression on all Jews merely by association & seek further investigation.

Originally posted by whatukno
Furthermore to reiterate #4 of the definition of the word violence they went around in cars with loudspeakers to round up the distributed works for the perpose of destroying them.

So then what is the real violence here? As long as no crime was committed in rounding up the books (assuming all books were given voluntarily), then they were only "disposing of their own property"...Just as you described here:

Originally posted by whatukno
To destroy your own copy of a book however is not a violent act because that is your personal property to do with as you wish.