Post #341,194
4/2/11 9:13:59 AM
|
*His* stupid act?
He can at least claim to believe in what he was saying. It's the producers who gifted him with wall-to-wall coverage who should feel this one.
The appropriate response to a publicity stunt is to ignore it.
--
Drew
|
Post #341,244
4/3/11 9:59:12 PM
|
Agreed, however
he was told about the potential repercussions when he planned this stunt last fall. He was smart enough to not do it then, but now he wanted his 15 minutes of fame. He deserves to be held responsible for what happened.
"Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from."
-- E.L. Doctorow
|
Post #341,254
4/4/11 8:33:00 AM
|
Im gonna burn a copy of the movie
"Chicago" how many people are you going to kill over it?
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
|
Post #341,278
4/4/11 9:04:35 PM
|
None
I'm not a radical, an extremist, or any other similar adjective. Besides, that video is not my "holy book" and thus it doesn't have the same deeply felt meaning in my life the way the Quran does to a Muslim.
You can understand that, right?
"Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from."
-- E.L. Doctorow
|
Post #341,265
4/4/11 2:31:52 PM
|
he is responsible
for the burning of a book.
He is not responsible for the actions of others.
|
Post #341,268
4/4/11 3:00:31 PM
|
Why not? Incitement to riot
--
Drew
|
Post #341,270
4/4/11 4:40:55 PM
|
Re: Why not? Incitement to riot
Follow that path and soon any criticism of Islam will be justification to get your ass tossed into jail. Better not dare draw that cartoon.
Plus the one that incited that crowd was over there, telling them "those infidels must pay." while pointing at people who weren't even involved.
|
Post #341,347
4/6/11 10:10:17 AM
|
Finally figured out my position
I haven't said anything for a couple of days because I needed to figure out the rationalization ... excuse me, the reason for my contradictory opinions.
On the one hand, I thought the editorial cartoon was fair game, and I was pissed off at Cartoon Network for censoring the South Park episode based on it.
On the other hand, I thought this book burning was pointlessly inflammatory.
This morning I reconciled the two thoughts: Intent matters.
The original cartoon was intended to point out that Islam was being used as a shield by terrorists. By not speaking out against those actions, the silent majority of Muslims were allowing their faith to be co-opted for violent purposes. This was the same thing that happened when white southern churches didn't speak out against the KKK when they claimed Christian symbols for what they did.
The South Park episode bothered me because they skewer everyone's sacred cows. Their Catholic Church episode was as insightful as it was calculatedly offensive. To not allow the image of Mohammed -- and they went out of their way to say nothing at all about Mohammed or Islam -- was giving special treatment.
The guy in Florida, however, had no point other than to piss people off. But let's assume for the sake of argument that he was making the argument you guys are, that regardless of the provocation the reaction was out of proportion and that should be the real story.
Suppose a group of swarthy men staged a bible burning in Alabama. Do you honestly believe the locals would stand by and respectfully defend their right to their opinion? Or do you think "them damn dirty Ay-rabs" would end up in the hospital or worse?
--
Drew
|
Post #341,348
4/6/11 10:54:44 AM
|
I understand where you're coming from
but I cannot reconcile that 1 book >= the lives of 12 people, which is the implication that I get from the media coverage.
|
Post #341,358
4/6/11 1:53:19 PM
|
Intent matters, but that's too low a bar.
I agree with you that it's possible to hold contradictory views - we all do to some extent. I agree with you that intent matters (though I think Ben T. would argue that intent never matters). But that probably shouldn't be the standard.
This morning on Morning Edition there was a discussion with Tina Brown on a story about the revolution in Libya (IIRC). A mild-mannered guy was driven to act against an army base that had been a source of attacks against people in his town. There had been skirmishes outside the gates, but nobody was able to get inside. So he filled up his car with various things and drove it up to the gate and detonated it, allowing the rebels inside and killing himself in the process. It apparently was a critical action early in the rebellion.
Steve Inskeep and Tina Brown both talked about how brave he was and how he was driven to be a "suicide bomber" to help his people overthrow the oppressors. All without any apparent irony or memory of how that term has been used over the past 10 years or so... :-/ The intent is the same in both cases - to attack the oppressor. But one we view as good, one we view as evil. (I'm not saying they're the same; simply that it's difficult to write the ability to make judgements based on any conceivable circumstances into the law.)
Free speech and expression is very important. I think in the abstract that there should be strong rules against incitement. I was recently surprised by how the Supreme Court has ruled on anti-incitement laws - the incitement apparently must be directed toward an "immediate particular violent goal" (or something like that) to be legally forbidden.
The leaders in Afghanistan that stirred up the crowd were guilty of incitement according to the Supreme Court's definition (as I understand it). They should be prosecuted if similar laws exist in Afghanistan. The guy in Florida, from what I know about the story thus far, not so much.
Whenever religion or ideals of cultural majesty get raised, things can get ugly when "bloody shirt" insults are thrown. Terry Jones' actions fit in that category. (I don't know about the South Park episode - maybe they crossed the line to "bloody shirt" territory, too; maybe not. They love being offensive to everyone.) Those who do such things should be condemned and shunned by their community and the media, but I think the Supreme Court probably has it right. It is not a direct immediate particular incitement and shouldn't be illegal.
If being offensive (even "bloody shirt" offensive) is illegal, then it's too easy (and too tempting) for those in power to use those laws to stifle dissent.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
(Opinion above subject to revision with age and temperament.)
|
Post #341,362
4/6/11 3:55:17 PM
|
Not saying what he did should be illegal
Like I said, my bigger complaint is with the news organizations that flocked to the story like moths to a flame. They knew it was a publicity stunt designed to piss people off. They played right into it, and now act indignant that the targets of the offense ... were offended.
--
Drew
|
Post #341,364
4/6/11 5:52:30 PM
|
Ah. Agreed.
|
Post #341,377
4/6/11 10:34:47 PM
|
Good analysis.
Yes, the media played into the Florida pastor's hands, potentially enlarging the provocation manyfold.
But I think your counter-comparison is not correct. The reverse would be some rural Islamic cleric organising a bible-burning, not some swarthy types in Alabama. The matching (over)reaction would be mainstream church goers torching Islamic Community Centres in retaliation. Yeah, it's an imperfect comparison. I'm not even sure if it be more correct or not if it were non-extremist church goers.
So do we know that Florida pastor's intent? Was he really intending to piss off Islamic clerics halfway around globe? Or is he a mere misguided soul simply given too much visibility? He could really believe what he says about the Koran. I could be giving him too much of the benefit of the doubt.
Wade.
Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers?
A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
|
Post #341,271
4/4/11 4:53:03 PM
|
What was said to the mullahs, though?
Has someone yet called them "extremists"? Because that's what they're behaving like. They wouldn't understand if the situation was reversed. No wait: they would understand it, but wrongly.
It saddens me that this Florida pastor would want to do this, and it annoys me that the response in Afghanistan is to seek violent revenge (and only in Afghanistan? not Saudi Arabia?), but it angers me that the response is more "don't poke the beast" and less calling the "beast" out for an out-of-proportion reaction.
Wade.
Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers?
A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
|
Post #341,272
4/4/11 7:51:10 PM
|
+5
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
|
