Skateboarder Stops Extremist From Burning The Qur'an

reply to post by Hefficide


Her being made to find a new identity is unfortunate is it? Yea having to give up who you are because you came under deadly threats for wanting to draw a prophete is slightly worse then unfortunate.

He chose to not to build the bon fire did he? The President and the most famous general since Eisenhower tells you not to burn them while having somebody threaten you with violence certainly makes you rethink what you choose to do.

I twisted your words? If I twisted your words ( I did say I paraphrased) then tell me what you meant.

On second thought, I feel I made my point and I really don't care if agree with me or not so I am finished debating this with you. I can see it will lead to nowhere.

Not just in this thread, but people keep going on and on about "muslims burning bibles" as a comparison to this guy burning a Quran. I seriously don't know where they are getting this information from.

According to Islam, it would be deeply sacrilegious and unislamic to "burn, shred and urinate on the bible" and this is a form of protest that would be very, very, very rare among muslims. While muslims generally do not accept the validity of the Bible as it exists today, they recognise Jesus, Moses, Abraham - all the prophets mentioned in the Bible, they recognise Gabriel, they recognise that it (originally) referred to the message of God, and many parts of this message are still intact in the Bible.

In fact, when a certain muslim in South Africa (I forget his name) suggested having a burn the Bible day (certainly not shredding or urinating), it was an ISLAMIC group that filed an injunction against him, and thus prevented him from going ahead with this plan.


So yeah, muslims don't "burn the bible" (nevermind shredding and urinating). There may be several accusations (that would be factual) you could put against muslims (or countries that profess to be muslim), but this would not be one of them.

Is it legal to set fire to anything in a school park? Honest question.

Since when do two wrongs make a right?

All the back and forth, the straw-man arguments about the theft of the book...Lets just peel all that back and look at the issue head on:

Book burning as free speech is a contradiction in and of itself: You act is a statement against the free speech of the author. In essence, it's the same as stating, " I have the God-given right to say that you don't have the right to say what you want!" Doesn't make any sense, does it? But burning another person's speech is in essence just that. But it's just one book you say? That is where these abominations begin.

Books are burnt for two reasons:
As a display of rejection of the ideals contained, or rejection of the author(s).
To destroy the ideas contained therein, in hopes of denying the public access to the knowledge.

Books are burnt by two types of people:
Ignorant folks who are scared of the alleged knowledge (most haven't actually read the text).
Intelligent people who are actively trying to a control society.

I don't want my country, my people or my religion to be known as book burners. Book burning is a tool of small minds, to control small minds, and I applaud the kid who did the right thing. I would hope that someone would do the same for any book about to burnt. I know I would. It's not an issue of this book, or that book, its an issue supporting a society that isn't afraid of ideas.

I challenge anyone to cite proof (other than a survival sitation! ) of a book burning event that produced any good whatsoever.

Wiki has some great history on the practice:
en.wikipedia.org...

i dont get what the big deal is and why people pay so much attention to the quran book burners.
if they want to spend their money on a book and then burn it, let them.
and
since when is it ok to steal someones property cause u dont like what they are doing with it?

He said something about burning a Koran and I was like: "Dude, you HAVE no Koran", and ran off.

Brilliant comedy value, someone should give this guy an award or something!

Originally posted by blamethegreys
I challenge anyone to cite proof (other than a survival sitation!

) of a book burning event that produced any good whatsoever.

how about in the bible, when a group of people converted to christianity and burnt all their books on curious arts. most christians thought it good.

Originally posted by Becoming
I am sick and tired of everyone bowing down to the Muslim community so as not to hurt their feelings. They burn, shred and urinate on the bible and nobody says anything. But if a person says they are going to burn their holy book they threaten bodily harm and we cower in their presence.

Where have you seen this? In your mind perhaps?

Get a grip people.

Unless you personally plan to burn a book why do you even care? Why does it matter to you if other people choose to do it or other people step in their way?

You say you're fed up of people walking on egg shells. Who is? And again, why do you even care?

I'm not walking on egg shells, because I'm not a hateful person who finds joy in insulting another's personal beliefs. I can abhor any religion as it stands, but I don't walk around protesting the existence of their religious beliefs or attempting to burn their holy books.

If you're fed up of people showing respect and tolerance, I do believe you're looking for another country to live in. Maybe one with no Human rights and no religious freedoms would suit you, then you wouldn't have to put up with people "walking on egg shells" (ie "being tolerant" and "showing respect").

The ignorance here really does astound me sometimes.

Originally posted by christinaV
i dont get what the big deal is and why people pay so much attention to the quran book burners.
if they want to spend their money on a book and then burn it, let them.
and
since when is it ok to steal someones property cause u dont like what they are doing with it?

Oh Christina.

It's about the intention.

If I buy a Kitten, are you happy for me to then kill it in a public park?
But it's my property isn't it? I paid for it. I can do whatever I like with it.

Right?

So, now you'll say it's an animal and that's different.

But what if it's not different to me? What if I just see it as a thing, an object that I own?

You see it as something precious and my act is something you find hateful and disgusting.

You see where this is going?

It's about the INTENT in the action, not about ownership or how something is valued by one more so than another. You have to consider the moral opinions of society in this argument, and the perceptions of different people.
You might just see it as a book, that someone has paid for. But others see it as a symbol of their faith and religious beliefs.
I might see a kitten as an object, something that I have paid for and something that I can destroy if I wish. But you wouldn't right?

Now that's settled, I'd just like to make clear that no kittens were harmed in the making of this argument.

reply to post by christinaV


Well sure they did, but the remaining 'curious artists' were probably like WTF?! We could've used those!
(assuming they hadn't been murdered and stuff already)

Seriously though, I don't know the context of the story. Was it a public thing, or just a personal choice by those people to stop using those books, and destroy them? Was there an expectation from the old order of curious arts for one to keep books such as those secret...whereas the act of burning them might have been out of respect for the texts? Was the burning of the books used by the Christians to indoctrinate others about the evils of the curious arts? Finally, what ancient knowledge might we have lost from that burning? Medicinal uses of native plants? Perhaps a cypher that could unlock other ancient writings? A lost account of great historical value?

Originally posted by detachedindividual

It's about the intention.

If I buy a Kitten, are you happy for me to then kill it in a public park?
But it's my property isn't it? I paid for it. I can do whatever I like with it.

It's about the INTENT in the action, not about ownership or how something is valued by one more so than another. You have to consider the moral opinions of society in this argument,

so by your logic it's perfectly ok to kill a kitten as long as the perpatrator INTENDS to help someone or something by doing so. like feeding it to an eagel, or putting it out of its misery, or perhaps you think kittens are evil and ridding the world of them would save millions of babies around the world, as long as you INTEND well then we should allow you to kill kittens.


obviously my point is that this is about a whole lot more then just the intent,

i like how someone pointed out that burning books is itself a hypocritical anti free speech act of free speech

but they failed to also point out that TELLING the hypocrit not to do so is also an anti free speech act of free speech.

we should never tell anyone what they can or can't do, we should only tell others what we/you or I would or wouldnt do, the only ones who should ever be able to say what someone can or can't do is the law, and the law should only ever be harm to oneself or another, and there is never any harm in something spoken, only the reactions to it can be harm,

there is so much fault to the arguement of this book burning fiasco, realy the only people left argueing are the ones who think it's wrong to burn books and the man should be stoped, and the other end of the arguement is that it's wrong to burn books and the man shouldn't be stoped because thats an unlawful use of force and we should protect our freedoms to do things as individuals that other individuals may disagree with simply because of their morals,

like the qouted poster above says, he is considering the moral opinions of society, well that is not something we should ever turn over to the law or the government, or else say hello to '1984'


so if this arguement is to continue all that ought to be addressed anymore is whether the government should stop acts of free speech if they involve book burnings, or not.


IMO NO don't turn over another peice of permission for control to the government they have to much already as it is.

lets burn books to celebrate our freedom to do so, give book burning new meaning. and forget about considering control of anothers morals, opinions and intentions.

im glad to see where this thread is going.
just i want to know, why certain people think that the man stealing is more in the wrong than someone trying to cause problems and no doubt hurt people with their actions..
i live in amarillo
and david grisham (leader of repent amarillo) is an evil person.
ive seen him constantly commit nonsensical hate crimes over and over, and to be honest i'm glad jacob stepped up to put him in his place.
who cares if jacob stole from him, hes stolen the life and happiness out of hundreds if not thousands of people in my town.