I’ve been trying to figure out how the smirking glibertarians at Reason feel about the Quran burning. Remember, they were all gung-ho on the “Draw Mohammed” nonsense, so I sort of expect they are all eager to go light up some Qurans for freedom.
I looked through a couple pages and didn’t find anything about it, but I did see this from the Fonzi of Freedom: “Obama Against Extending Bush Tax Cuts on Top Earners (Producers?),” and I got a good chuckle out of that Randian bullshit. When, oh when, will these guys ever go Galt?
El Cid
They acquire their capital directly from the invisible hand’s wallet and depend on unknown processes to produce their products or services.
Bulworth
Are the “Producers” actually producing anything?
cleek
i like how ‘productivity’ means taking personal credit for what your subordinates produce.
by that accounting, though, nobody who isn’t the top-ranking officer of a company is productive at all (because you can’t count the same ‘productivity’ twice), no matter how much they make. furthermore, except the top person, anyone who receives payment for his/her services is merely leeching cash from the only productive person in the company – and that includes all those high-paid executives who make millions but don’t actually sit at the top of the org chart.
so why defend the salaries of highly-paid leeches ?
Corner Stone
Damn, 4 posts in 2 hours? Did I miss where Cole said he was burned out, just had enough and going to galt it for a while?
martha
I realize this may sound harsh. Or like a paranoid Obot. But I think they and their ilk (the Cheneys, Bush, all those other horrible “Republicans,” neocons, etc.) are not criticizing this because they hope that this insane preacher will light the torch (figuratively) that they’ve been praying for. That something terrible will happen on Obama’s watch. Then they can say “I told you so, this man is not capable of defending our country” against the foreign menace that is radical Islam or whatever their enemy du jour is.
God I’m depressed.
Mike G
Yes, in Randidiot World, Paris Hilton is a ‘producer’ by definition because she is rich.
New Yorker
I don’t think the “Draw Mohammed” day and the planned Qu’ran burning are remotely comparable. Was the “Draw Mohammed” day childish? Sure. But let’s remember it was in response to the appalling violence directed against anything related to Denmark following the publishing of cartoons. What happened was an absolutely disgusting coordinated attack on free expression by several Muslim governments and their agents.
Jones, on the other hand, is deliberately trying to inflame tensions with the (overwhelmingly) peaceful Muslim-American community. He’s a wanna-be Fred Phelps looking for attention.
Legally, both “Draw Mohammed” and burning the Qu’ran are protected forms of speech, but morally, they’re not in the same universe.
Maude
@Mike G:
Ms. Hilton is a producer. She has made work for law enforcement. Helps cut down on unemployment.
Ash Can
These people honestly have no clue what the whole concept of “production” is, do they? Seriously, how fucking dense do you have to be to be incapable of understanding something so simple?
Violet
The “Koran burning” controversy is cracking me up in one way. Not the proposed burning itself, which is awful. What cracks me up is the fact that conservatives hate Islam and want to stick it to the Muslins, but they also want to own the Loving of the Troops and the top Generals have told them it’s putting the troops in danger.
So they’re stuck between hate and love and don’t know what to do. The ensuing scramble to love the troops more than liberals do, while still hating Muslins, is kind of funny to watch. Very sad in reality, but still funny to watch them tie themselves in knots while trying to wrap themselves in the flag.
NobodySpecial
Their brains went Galt about the age of 12, John. Plus they produce nothing. What more do you want? The only way they get more invisible is by having their molecules stolen Chevy-Chase style.
Stooleo
Yes, because the preceding 10 years is a testament to the fact that tax breaks for the rich stimulate the economy, (and that pays for itself dont’cha know).
Martin
@Ash Can:
kth
I read Freedom Fonzarelli’s parenthetical as an abbreviation of the (rhetorical) question: “Aren’t the top earners the most productive people in society?”
No. This has been another edition of SATSQ.
p.a.
I believe Census and other gvt. statistics show that the median income of American Muslims is above the median of all Americans. So the burning of the Quran is an attack on society’s producers and should not be advocated.
Or the burning is an attack on society’s producers which will move them closer to the Galtian revolution and therefore should be advocated.
More study of the Randian texts is required before a position can be assumed on this issue. The Committee of the Whole will chose members to issue a report, and select another commission to nominate members for the self-criticism process.
(hat tip to Unitarian Jihad)
PurpleGirl
@Bulworth: Gas and detritus.
Nimm
Someone please explain to me how, for example, the guys that got rich betting against the housing bubble by simply buying credit default swaps on the mortgage-backed securities that they neither bought nor sold personally, are “producers”…?
Lots of people these days – particularly around the financial centers – make lots of money in ways that is essentially just going to the roulette table. Are they producers?
And I’m not asking rhetorically. I’m not familiar enough with glibertarian economic theory to know whether simply gambling on stocks or bonds is “producing.”
Xecky Gilchrist
@kth: “Aren’t the top earners the most productive people in society?”
That implication annoys the hell out of me too (and clearly several other people here.)
Weren’t the glibs recently falling all over each other figuring out new ways of expressing how productively productive the rich were? Like by calling them “hyperproducers” or “megaproducers” or something?
Bob L
@New Yorker: Can you guys get your facts right? Draw Mohamed was a direct response to the death threats against the creators of South Park for showing Mohamed in a cartoon. Go watch Thunderf00t’s channel on you-tube, he’s the one who started it, not the posers at Reason.
Short Bus Bully
It just comes down to the worship of WEALTH. Everything else is just window dressing in life.
slag
@Xecky Gilchrist: I just look forward to the day libertarians start to refer to the wealthy as the Masters of the Universe unironically.
But now that I think about it, they’ve probably already done that. I’m not aware of all internet traditions.
El Cid
@Bob L: There’s nothing in the post which suggests Reason started it. Just that they were ‘gung-ho’ about it.
Guster
@Nimm: I’m pretty sure that the answer is that they produce ‘wealth.’
Which is a far purer form of production than simply making cars or toaster ovens.
Frank
@kth:
I assume a pro athlete would fit into this category. I fail to see how pro athletes are the most productive in our society.
I assume some lawyers also fit into this category. I fail to see how lawyers are the most productive in our society.
The list goes on and on…
Amir_Khalid
@New Yorker: The Draw Mohammed day wasn’t merely childish. It and Terry Jones’ planned Quran burning have this in common: both are intended to provoke — maybe “inflame” is the better word — the sensitivities of a particular religious community. Both, even if they are protected by constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech, are thus beyond the pale of civilized behavior. So I can’t agree with you that they are not in the same moral universe.
Larry Signor
The wingnuts will take to the air over President Obamas’ disapproval of turning the Koran into a candle of hate.
Won’t be any doubt about his
religionloyaltyconvictions now. Let the wingnut turn.TomG
“beyond the pale of civilized behavior”? You’re talking about hurting people’s fee-fees about their particular version of an invisible guy in the sky who claims he gets to throw some of us in an eternal torment after we die.
AxelFoley
@TomG:
Atheists at times are just as intolerant as theists it seems.
Pangloss
When I was in radio, I worked on a morning show that rose from #4 to #1 in the ratings. I got a small bonus that was in my contract, and each of the sales people doubled their income to make several times what I was making. So I created the product, and the sales department sliced it and diced it and took orders over the phone.
Shipping manufacturing jobs overseas is likewise “productive.”
Kirk Spencer
re Going Galt, please remember the whole premise of that idea is that everything stops because the CEOs of the companies go on an extended exclusive vacation.
Really. Nothing can work because the CEO is out of touch.
Ayn Rand, unappreciated comedienne.
TomG
hahah “intolerant” ? Is there any religion besides Jainism and Taoism (and perhaps Buddhism) that has NEVER started a war and killed people about differing matters of FAITH ?
I’m intolerant about killings (and rapes, and tortures) done in the name of nonexistent gods, that’s true. Try rationality instead.
Ash Can
And yet another anti-religionist pleads for sweet reason while trumpeting the logical fallacy of “if some, then all.”
Sluggers
The Producers…I love that movie. Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder were hilarious. Also, it provided a good lesson in how capitalist societies actually work.
TomG
Okay, Ash Can. Name one that hasn’t.
AxelFoley
@TomG:
I’m pretty sure there have been many atheists who’ve started wars or killed many in the whole of human history. Or was Stalin a Christian? Or Attilla the Hun? What religion was chairman Mao?
Ross Hershberger
The irony of a place called The Dove World Outreach Center intentionally antagonizing members of another religion is simply staggering.
elm
@Kirk Spencer:
That’s my favorite part of the idea of Going Galt. Society would continue merrily along without those particular CEOs, investment bankers, and glibertarian bloggers. To the degree that CEOs and investment bankers do productive work, there are plenty of people willing and able to do that work.
On the other hand, we know exactly what happens when low-paid peons like air traffic controllers, waste collectors, nurses, miners, teachers, or police strike: sizable chunks of society shut down quickly.
The idea of Going Galt looks like a manifestation of glibertarian anxiety about being completely unnecessary to society.
Comrade Kevin
@TomG: Unitarianism. Ba’hai.
Larry Signor
@Ross Hershberger: Yup. Almost Carlin-esque.
Comrade Kevin
@Ross Hershberger: Well, they want to “reach out” with their hands and strangle people they don’t like.
Frank
@Ross Hershberger:
There is now a global terror alert because of these clowns. If there was any justice, these evil people that portray themselves as “Christian” would have to pay for the costs as a result of the terror alert.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/09/interpol_issues_global_terror_alert_if_koran_burni.php?ref=fpa
Amir_Khalid
@TomG: Yes. Deliberately provoking others to anger, possibly murderous anger, over something that cuts to the core of their identity is indeed beyond the pale of civilized behavior. Even if that something is of no value to the provocateur. As lawyers around here would say, both provocateur and provoked party are jointly and severally responsible for the consequences of the anger thus provoked.
Larry Signor
George Carlin explains Galt.
Ash Can
@TomG: Do you seriously believe there was ever a war that was started solely on the grounds of religious dogma? You shouldn’t have slept through history class.
morzer
You can’t expect Gillespie to go Galt. Who would wash his clothes and make him breakfast?
morzer
@AxelFoley:
Daoism and Buddhism have both started wars in Chinese history. Millenarian Buddhism was a particular favorite of peasant rebels, who thought that Maitreya would lead them to the promised land, so to speak.
AxelFoley
@morzer:
Figured as much. Thanks, morzer.
Bottom line, Christian warmongers don’t have the market cornered on wars in the name of religion or any other wars. Wars have been started and fought by believers of every faith, as well as non-believers.
JC
Look, this pastor is an evil idiot clown, and we should rag on him as such.
But, as they say, ‘freedom isn’t free’.
He has the right to burn the Koran. People have the right to burn the Bible. People have the right to draw Mohammed. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.
Lots of people on this site are talking as if he should be stopped. No, he should be exposed as the idiot he is, and it should be noted that ‘in America, you have the freedom to be an idiot.’
I wonder if a bible burning across the street, would expose this nonsense. Maybe a holy books burning altogether. Get them all together, play some Morrison, ‘this is the end’, make a whole apocalyptic counter-scene. Bring out the libertarian hippies burning the bible, Koran, Bhagavadgita, the Torah, have a lot of drums playing. Dancing in loinscloths with bull’s heads on.
A real Bacchanalia.
TomG
Ash Can @43 – yes, I will say that I’m certain that more than one war was started solely based on religious dogma disagreements. I know most wars are politically motivated, and that some apparently religious wars were thinly veiled excuses to plunder (the Crusades, for instance), but I doubt that there wasn’t a single instance of a country going to war for primarily religious reasons. I don’t have time at the moment to look up examples, but I’ll check tonight.
meh
how the fuck are we losing to these people?
edit – @ 2:32 – fabulous.
I swear to the FSM, I do not fucking get it.
cleek
@JC:
this
Comrade Kevin
@JC:
Such as?
Amir_Khalid
If there is any faith (or non-faith) community with no members who have started a war, I believe that it is only because it has not yet had any members with command of an army. That particular devil whispers into everyone’s ear.
meh
@Amir_Khalid:
Cantheism, also Kantheism, is a modern term for religions based on the inherent goodness of the cannabis plant.
cleek
@meh:
awesome!
Kryptik
You know the most infuriating thing about the whole damn thing is just how many of our stalwart Dems will decide that tax cuts for the rich is the hill to live or die on (link via Greg Sargent). With little indication on whether it’s really an issue they’d get killed on locally if they didn’t fight for the extension of the top bracket tax cuts.
Don’t you just love our political reality, where one party says the other hates America…and half of that other party will stand up and agree, for the sake of ‘bipartisanship’ (not to mention electoral triangulation)?
Linda Featheringill
@martha:
Just because you are paranoid, that does not mean that you are wrong.
I would hesitate to put actual names to who “they” are, because the real plotters are probably not public people.
But I could see this happening. Bear in mind the military-industrial complex, which is alive and well today.
Let us sit down and be depressed together.
(( ))
Walker
Reasonoid Dictionary:
Productivity: See rent collecting
Michael
Dammit to hell – would somebody get this link over to Jed Lewiston at Kos?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_i0J7LH0CA
Terry Jones and the Dove Outreach Cult doing a hate video on blacks, with liberal use of “ni99er”.
Felonious Wench
For Christians, the closest equivalency to the Koran to Muslims is Jesus Christ. By burning the Koran, it’s the same thing as torching Jesus. Both are considered the Word of God, capitalized for a reason. It’s not like burning a “Muslim Bible.” The book itself, the language it is written in, is sacred. The object is sacred.
Christians would freak if someone burned a PICTURE of Jesus. This is much, much worse. Burning the Koran is the height of insensitive behavior to Muslims.
FW
Joshua
All we need from the Dems at this point is to do nothing – the exact same thing they have done on climate change and the capital gains tax loophole.
Yet apparently Dems can’t even do nothing properly. Assholes.
Nick
@Kryptik:
The Democratic Party’s co-opting of wealthier demographics in the name of social issues is also to blame for that. There is no reason why the party of working Americans is holding seats like Virginia-11, Connecticut-4 and New York-1.
That said, I think the bigger problem is Obama’s alone on his stance on tax cuts. He’s got no one backing him up. There’s not a big constituency for this. Some of us care, but there isn’t a movement about. Especially since many liberals are like this;
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/9/9/900413/-Will-Obama-Cave-and-Extend-Bush-Tax-Cuts-for-the-Rich
Which brings me to my frustration with the fragrant bullshit of “We’d respect Obama if he put up a fight even if he has to compromise in the end”
He’s putting up a fight right now to stop tax cuts for the rich, it’s pretty clear his fight isn’t moving votes in Congress. In the end, if he’s forced to compromise, what’s the odds we’re going to see “Good fight Obama” at the end?
My prediction, bank it, is we’ll see “Obama caves again, weak President, primary in 2012. This is the last straw for me!”
Amir_Khalid
@meh: Sometimes I wish I had a faith in the God-given Greatness of Ganja. But here in Malaysia, presumption of capital drug trafficking starts with the possession of just 15 grams of any “dangerous” drug, even pot.
meh
@Felonious Wench:
My favorite is the Cordoba militia saying they shouldn’t build the center out of “sensitivity” to the families of 9/11 victims and the citizens of NYC because it would be in bad taste (since they, you know, have the constitutional right to build it) yet burning a Quran is a FANTASTIC idea and the “Moslems” that are upset by it should quit being such pussies and just assimilate already.
meh
@Amir_Khalid:
well, you may not have weed, but you do have authentic, home-made Ikan Bakar – so I would call it even.
Martin
Reason would support (without endorsement) the burning of Korans, BTW. The laws of supply and demand apply here. If Korans weren’t to be burned, they’d be too scarce and therefore expensive to do so. Cheap, abundant Korans is really at fault here. OTOH, this will spur new demand in the Koran marketplace, creating jobs and generating wealth.
Therefore: Burning Korans is economically patriotic. Those who are trying to prevent the Korans from being burned are placing artificial barriers on the free market by not offering a financial incentive to not burn them, thereby offsetting the wealth generation that the Koran burning would create. This makes them soçialists.
Nick
and btw
The media blaming the Quran burner pastor for the attention he’s receiving is like an arsonist blaming the fire for the house burning down
Kryptik
@Nick:
This is what tempers a lot of my disdain for how Obama’s term is going, honestly: Obama has many blemishes already, but it’s still overshadowed by the fact that we have way, way too many Dems who just absolutely suck and seem to wish they could drop everything, and join the ‘Cool Kids table’ on the GOP side.
Amir_Khalid
@Nick: No. Terry Jones is the arsonist here. The media are the crowd of bystanders who get off on watching the flames.
Nick
@Amir_Khalid:
Shirley Roper Phleps says her dad burns Korans all the time. It’s true, I know someone who burned a Koran after the Battle of Fallujah, no one paid attention to them? Why is this guy being paid attention to?
If the media never uttered Terry Jones’ name, no one would have ever known he did this or was planning to except the 30 people who go to his church. He’d just be another nut in the crowd.
Terry Jones is nothing but a wayward match, the media are the ones throwing it into the house.
Blue Texan
Well, we know where Reason’s Radley Balko stands.
Shorter Balko: poking Muslims in the eye by drawing cartoons is totally different than poking Muslims in the eye by burning Korans.
Hugin & Munin
Amir_Khalid: And Nick would be the ratfucker “journalist” who thinks that “Jews control the media.” Take his statements with a grain of salt (and perhaps some Tequila).
Felonious Wench
@meh:
Burning the Koran? Tell you what, let’s go burn Torahs like the Nazis did too. Stupid Jews getting all upset about that. It’s not like it’s THEIR country.
Amir_Khalid
@Nick:The media didn’t turn Terry Jones into a Quran-burner. He had this brainwave before he announced it to them.
The only difference between Terry and Fred Phelps is that when Fred did his Quran-burning, he forgot to invite the media to watch; and now Fred is jealous that Terry’s getting all the attention.
John Cole
@Blue Texan: I saw that. Drawing Mohammed was a brave protest!
Do you think they really believe that?
Blue Texan
@John Cole: Sadly, I think they really do.
fasteddie9318
Frankly, if Reason does not come out forcefully in favor of burning Qurans, I will wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse.
AxelFoley
LOL, I saw an MSNBC reporter interview Jones earlier today. He’s says part of the reason he’s burning the Qu’ran is because it doesn’t praise Jesus (a lie, since Jesus is considered a revered prophet in the Qu’ran).
So I’m like, what about the Torah? Or any other non-Christian holy book?
Amir_Khalid
@Hugin & Munin: “Jews control the media”? That’s preposterous, and “journalist” Nick should know better than to believe that. Every journalist (even me) knows that corporate greed controls the media.
quaint irene
Ah, Terry Jones. He’s not a real doctor, but he plays one on TV!
meh
@Felonious Wench:
tis mah point exactly…that sweet tasty hypocrisy…or in this case hypocrazy. The wingnut wing of the GOP is seriously composed of mean girls and toddlers. They keep pushing the line of what’s acceptable behavior – each time seeing if they can get away with it – until someone goes completely off the deep end, the MSM gets it’s nose outta joint, then all of a sudden they (the wingnuts) are the voice of reason (eg – see Sullivan, Andrew – today re: Palin). Good post over at TPM about James Zobgy basically saying just because you denounce bad shit doesn’t absolve you from the responsibility of having caused it with your inflammatory bullshit.
licensed to kill time
I was thinking this morning about how great it would be if the media all got together and decided to simply not cover this guy’s ‘event’ and then realized I was probably still dreaming and even if they did some fuckstick would film it on his camera phone and plaster it on YouTube anyway so basically it’s just like candy to a baby, they cannot resist and we will all be assimilated into this stupid stupid man’s vision of peace and harmony for people who think/believe like him.
I also love how he ‘is praying about it’ and will certainly hear his own wishes and desires as the voice of gawd, ‘cuz that’s how those guys roll. The still, small voice indeed.
liberal
@Frank:
There’s a big difference between athletes and lawyers. Athletes themselves (if not the professional sports collectives they work for) don’t collect economic rents, they collect wage income.
Lawyers, OTOH—a substantial fraction of their earnings are rents, because of barriers to entry.
cleek
@Hugin & Munin:
or some pie…
liberal
@Walker:
Heh. Best comment on the thread.
.
Of course, even people like Roy Edroso drew a picture of Mohammed, and a lot of other people who aren’t glibertarians saw it as a way to show solidarity with those who were being threatened with violence for not abiding by Islamic rules, which they, not being Islamic, are not in any way obliged to abide by. Sort of like the support for Salman Rushdie over The Satanic Verses. It was defensive in nature.
The Quran burning, on the other hand, is obviously an aggressive provocation simply based on hating Muslims, period, and would probably happen even if every single Muslim in the world who isn’t an actual member of al-Qaeda did everything they possibly could to assure paranoid Americans that they don’t hate them.
Hugin & Munin
Cleek: Yes, well when will you create pie-a-la-kindle?
Sigh, such are the vicissitudes of backdoor work-slacking.
norbizness
At some point, you’ll cease to care what non-entities think.
Paris
I disagree. They are basically the same thing. Its a conscious decision to be an asshole in order to piss someone off. So was the original Danish cartoon controversy.
goatchowder
They are thieves and parasites.
Fuck all this Galtian bullshit. Producers my ass. We need to revive the term “idle rich”.
les
@AxelFoley:
I’m not sure “intolerant” means what you think it means. The fact that you’re perfectly welcome to believe in a sky fairy (that is, I am tolerant of your belief) doesn’t mean I have to respect it, nor even be particularly civil about it. I know many god-botherers think tolerate means privilege, respect and warmly accept without criticism of any sort (only when it come to their beliefs, of course, because they and only they are right); but it ain’t so.
les
@AxelFoley:
Logic. You’re doing it wrong. Besides, I thought the religionists held themselves to higher standards. Of course, when you can’t answer the question without hurting your position, there’s not much you can do.
Amir_Khalid
@les: In other words, you define tolerance for another’s beliefs as not obligating you to show respect or civility? Interesting. To my understanding, disrespect and incivility are evidence of intolerance.
mslarry
Heard a conversation about this on my local NPR station yesterday. When callers called in and pointed out that this is only news because the media chooses to make it so… the NPR commentator couldn’t believe his ears. He went to ask one caller, rather snarkly, if we was suggesting the media determine what is news and what isn’t? When the caller replied yes and provided examples of when that happened in the past, like not covering the anti-war protests before the Iraq war, suddenly “his time was up”.
These guys are so far up their own asses they can’t see the sun b/c their eyes are so covered in excrement.
The fact that Fred Phelps’ daughter is having a cow about the lack of coverage their “church” has received for burning Koran’s should be enough to give the media pause. But no… they’re full steam ahead content to drive this “non-story” over a cliff.
Batocchio
Massive tax cuts to the wealthy didn’t create jobs under Reagan or Bush the Younger. (Gillespie actually links the ever-credible Heritage Foundation for support later on.) It’s not that Gillespie’s ignorant (or lying) that’s so grating, it’s that he’s so damn smug while peddling this bullshit – which is standard conservative dogma, even if you slap a “libertarian” label on it.
les
@Amir_Khalid:
Well, hie thee to a dictionary, my friend. Webster’s gives us : marked by forbearance or endurance. I’m generally tolerant, though sometimes uncivil, and I don’t respect belief in god as a belief at all; this Jones fool is intolerant and damned uncivil. Most US christianists think tolerance means privilege, when it comes to their particular beliefs, and that they have a right to be free from disagreement or anyone else’s behavior that they don’t like. That doesn’t make ’em correct.
AxelFoley
@les:
LOL, are you serious? Does my faith, of which you know NOTHING about, bother you? Does it shake your non-belief? If not, why worry about it?
Lynnehs
Actually, I support Draw Muhammad Day, but not the Quran burning. (But I’m not Randian either, and I fully support Muslims building mosques on their own property wherever they want to.)
Here’s my reasoning. Nobody has the right to enforce a religious rule on someone outside of that religion. If Muslims don’t want to draw Muhammad, that’s fine, but they have no right to tell non-Muslims not to draw Muhammad. (In fact, not all Muslims believe in the ban against drawing Muhammad, which is why you CAN find some Muslim art depicting Muhammad in the first place!)
Secondly, nobody has the right to try to censor others or threaten violence or state punishment for blasphemy or apostasy. But because some (not all) Muslims have threatened violence in order to silence those who would criticize or mock Islam (which we all have the right to do, just as we mock and criticize all other religions), and because sometimes those threats work it just encourages more violence. To discourage the violence and threats of violence you have to show that such bullying tactics will not work. The only way to do that is to keep repeating the behavior that drew the threats, in order to prove those tactics are futile. So Draw Muhammad Day was born.
Burning the Quran is different, though. Historically, burning books has always been done as a FORM of censorship, not a protest against it. To burn a book says you don’t want other people reading the book. To book a Quran doesn’t just say we should be allowed to be non-Muslim and follow non-Muslim rules, it says nobody should be Muslim. That’s an entirely different message than the Draw Muhammad Day message. DMD is anti-censorship, whereas burning books is pro-censorship.
Legally, of course, Americans have the right to burn anything they own as long as they do it in a way that doesn’t violate content-neutral fire safety laws. (In the case of the church in Gainesville, however, they have been warned that their plans do run afoul of such fire safety laws.) But even when safety is not an issue, and even though it’s legal, burning books is just never a good idea.
Frank
@mslarry:
It has been most interesting comparing the MSM’s coverage of the tea bagger rallies vs the anti-war rallies back in late 2002/early 2003. There were perhaps ten times as many people in the anti-war rallies but they got perhaps one tenth of the coverage that the tea bagger nuts got. It really is mind-boggling. And this is not just limited to CNN/NBC etc. NPR is very much part of the same circus. They can deny it all they want. This is why I rarely watch any of them any more.
Frank
@Lynnehs:
Yes, you have the right to be a jerk and an ass. But why be one if you don’t have to?
Amir_Khalid
@les: Oh, I didn’t say you were wrong about the dictionary definition. I just find your way of showing tolerance for others’ beliefs somewhat, um, idiosyncratic.
I also find myself wondering how you define “intolerance”.
les
@AxelFoley:
Axel, I don’t know anything about your faith, or lack thereof, and find it irrelevant to my comment; and you surely are no threat to me of any kind. I merely pointed out that to defend one camp, by claiming that another camp did something wrong, fails the basic logic test. But maybe it was just lack of reading comprehension all along.
les
@Amir_Khalid:
Well, intolerance would be the failure or refusal to forbear or endure. To believe, and act, as if another doesn’t have the right to hold or practice their own belief. Look, I surely believe that patience, acceptance, civility are virtues; and I don’t (nor do any atheists I know of) run down the street yelling at religious people, or confronting them about it; but I’m pretty tired of the notion that if I don’t positively respect and appreciate some yahoo’s belief, it’s some kind of intolerance–especially in the context of religion, most of which is premised on intolerance and the notion that only the few who recognize the exact sky fairy, and practice the exact rites and rituals are entitled to eternal privilege, with everyone else getting damnation.
Amir_Khalid
@les:
This says more than you realize about your real attitude towards beliefs you don’t share.
les
@Amir_Khalid:
Dude/dudette, you really need to bone up on the distinction between thought/belief and action. And you don’t mind read worth a damn. I am fully aware that I’m not making a secret of my real attitude toward religious belief (and, since you seem to over generalize, I’ll point out that that’s the only beliefs I’ve said anything about)–I’m aware of what I said, I said it intentionally, and I apparently have a better grasp of word meaning than you. My attitude toward religion is that belief in anything like the christian/muslim god is irrational and unreasonable. Jebus on a pogo stick, thousands of years down the road now and christians can’t even agree among themselves what they believe the deal is. My attitude toward believers is that they are legally and personally entitled and welcome to believe whatever they want, and for many or most it’s a positive in their lives and sometimes for society. I even tolerate complete assholes like Phelps and Jones–while being convinced they’re assholes. I don’t think that religious belief comes with some kind of privilege attached, to be above disagreement or mockery, and it definitely doesn’t come with the right to be privileged over non-believers or other believers in the public square.
maus
@les: To sum up the difference, it’s not so much what you say as much as how you say it. In this case, it was the idiots in “Draw Mohammad Day” selectively blaspheming, it doesn’t make a “brave” statement until you’re slaughtering every sacred cow at once.
Also, just because you CAN do something legally, doesn’t mean it’s always appropriate. Sociocultural sensitivity is a given, whether you think any idea should be sacred or not. This goes for many non-religious ideas as well.
Steve
I read that Fox News has announced they will not be covering this guy’s event. Seriously, if Fox News turns out to be the only media outlet with reasonable judgment, it might blow my mind.
AxelFoley
@les:
I see the Fail is strong in this one.
Kryptik
Update: Jones has said he will cancel the Koran Burning event after assurances that the Park51 project will be moving. Those involved with Park51 have denied any such deal to move, however.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39074573/ns/politics-white_house/
.
@Frank: The real question is, why, given the choices that Lynnehs elucidated, do people like you have more of a problem with people who aren’t actually harming or even threatening to harm anyone? I’m sorry to go against the touchy-feely consensus that says the absolute worst fucking thing you can do to someone is hurt their delicate fee-fees or fail to affirm the integrity of their personal opinions, but jesus fuck, I feel like I’m reading Shakesville here. “Sure, it was done to oppose people who were actually threatening violence, but OMG, someone’s cherished beliefs have been disrespected!!! The pain! The agony!”
Being offended is not a big deal if you don’t make it one. Sometimes, it forces you to confront your own intellectual laziness, even. I thought most adults understood this?
And as PZ and IOZ have been saying, if the whole occupying-and-destroying-their-countries thing hasn’t made them hate us, I doubt this will push them over the edge.
Mnemosyne
@Lynnehs:
So because a small group of vocal fundamentalist Muslims have offended you, it’s okay for you to offend all Muslims?
Do you also stand outside your local Unitarian Universalist church and call the minister a child molester because Unitarians are responsible for the actions of Roman Catholic priests? I mean, they’re all Christians, so they all believe the same thing and they’re all equally responsible.
Not to mention that the whole Muhammed cartoon controversy and protests had a lot more to do with racism and racial tensions in Denmark than religion, but somehow the Americans who picked up on it missed that whole subtext and actually think it was all about religion. Or, at least, they very carefully pretend it was all about religion and nothing to do with racism, even though we have American teabaggers complaining every day that our president is a “Muslim” (youknowwhatImean).
maus
@Mnemosyne:
I just call ’em “south park conservative” atheists. I like skepticism and penn and teller just as much as the next guy, but some atheist loudmouths just unfunny and assburgers. (This is not an argument on “new atheists” and the dawkinses, just a segment of their fanbase. Ok, I lied, Hitchens sorta fits in. Sorta.)
Mnemosyne
@maus:
I will take Penn & Teller seriously when I see an episode of “Bullshit” about Ayn Rand and Objectivism. Until then, no sale.
Frank
@ . ,
The real question is, why, given the choices that Lynnehs elucidated, do people like you have more of a problem with people who aren’t actually harming or even threatening to harm anyone?
What in the world are you talking about???
You are putting words in my mouth apparently just to fit your own little narrative. Please point out where in my posting I made any comment whatsoever on any other people than the “draw Mohammed” people.
maus
@Mnemosyne: I likes the pretty magic, not the Cato-cronyism.
jl
Maybe ‘Producers’ referred to the movie?