iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Nigel Barber

Nigel Barber

GET UPDATES FROM Nigel Barber
 

After Quran Burning, The Need to Put People First

Posted: 04/ 5/11 12:39 PM ET

A quirky Florida sect has finally carried out its threat to burn the Quran. Once again the obscure sect was rewarded with worldwide attention.

The absurdly named Dove Outreach Center in Gainesville, Fla., claims that burning the Quran is an act of freedom of expression articulating the view that Islam is evil. Moreover, the virulent animosity stirred up in the Muslim world by the Quran burning only proves their point.

They accept no responsibility for ensuing riots in Afghanistan that resulted in many deaths, including nine rioters in the Taliban hotbed of Kandahar, Afghanistan, and 11 deaths in an insurgent-organized attack on the U.N. compound in the northern city of Mazar-I-Sharif.

What is expression?

Burning books is a strange way of promoting freedom of expression, but there is a precedent for burning flags and burning political leaders in effigy as a form of legitimate political expression. The Quran is a symbol of the religion: hence the burning.

The World Trade Center was also a symbol -- of American imperialism -- and thus targeted for destruction by al Qaeda. If burning books is "expression," how about burning office towers with workers in them? We are much more upset at the idea of homicidal self expression than at the burning of books.

The Muslim world, however, seems to be much more incensed by the burning of their religious text than they are by arbitrary destruction of human life, whether by suicide bombers, American drone attacks or religious stonings.

What is freedom?

Lawyers have an old saying that one must not yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Freedom of expression is contingent on responsible assessment of possible harm arising from one's actions. Or, as John Stewart Mill expressed it, "The right to swing one's fist ends with one's neighbor's nose."

Unlike the Florida sect, the Dutch really care about freedom of expression and felt that it was being seriously eroded by conservative Muslims among them. Hence the publication of cartoons portraying Mohammed as a terrorist and other depictions that proved deeply offensive to Muslims around the world, inciting protests and riots in which about 100 people died.

The newspaper putting out these cartoons, Jyllands-Posten, may not have accurately predicted the consequences, at least for the first printing. In effect, this was exactly like crying "Fire!" in the crowded theater and many innocent people died in the ensuing stampede. Knowing the likely consequence means that burning Qurans in Gainesville, or anywhere else, is an act of criminal mischief.

Should we respect religion?

There is no need to respect any particular religion, such as Islam, or all religions. Religious people often claim high ground for themselves and their faiths but are not particularly ethical in their conduct.

With freedom of expression comes responsibility -- in this case, to avoid needless bloodshed by pointless burning of qurans. Does this mean that the terrorists have won and that they are enforcing sharia throughout the world and denying us of free speech by censoring opportunities to criticize Islam? Not really. There are other, less inflammatory, less deadly, ways of criticizing Islam.

Under our system of government, no one is obliged to respect any particular religion. What we do respect is another person's freedom of thought. That means that if someone is an atheist, they are entitled to express the opinion that all religions are substantially works of fiction.

How about respecting people?

We do not need to respect either Christianity or Islam, as belief systems, just the right of individuals to believe them. We do, however, need to recognize that religious identity and symbols are important for many people throughout the world.

The Dutch cartoons were inflammatory, not because they depicted the face of Mohammad but because they depicted him in an unflattering way that was perceived as deliberately insulting. Burning the Quran is viewed similarly except that this is also considered an unspeakable blasphemy in a part of the world that does not guarantee freedom of religion, much less freedom of expression.

Instead of respecting religion, we need to respect people. We can begin by respecting their right to life.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 93
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
Ytrus
''it's a map''
10:45 AM on 04/08/2011
"In effect, this was exactly like crying 'Fire!' in the crowded theater and many innocent people died in the ensuing stampede."

It wasn't a stampede, it was murder. This argument wouldn't pass muster in even a introductory ethics class.

You cannot hold someone responsible for the violence committed intentionally by other people. If that were true, I could hold you responsible for the deaths of those U.N. workers, since you're giving legitimacy to the actions of these extremists by arguing we should squelch free speech. When someone hears that all they need to do to get what they want is threaten to kill someone, what do you think they're going to do?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Powerslave Six Six Six
12:54 PM on 04/07/2011
Burn, baby burn!
I will take my First Amendment freedoms over their "holy" book any day.
11:56 PM on 04/06/2011
I think the biggest mistake we make when looking at religions, of almost any flavor, is that we attempt to use reason to understand what it is that they do. These things, burning of books, are just little blips and for the most unreasonable religions, they will always find and tell us of how we are not respecting them. Now if we take it to its extreme and do absolutely nothing they can point to, then they will point to our very existence as the thing that offends them (yes I know). In the most part, respect would not be an issue if religious people kept their faith to themselves. It is the many different types of proselytizing that causes most of the bumps in their lives.

Maybe atheists should get out there on the hustings with one of the two new Atheist Bibles that have just been released, and maybe even do some door knocking. If churchies think they are being unfairly impacted now, let them be at the end of this sort of proselytizing for a little while; oh how they would whinge and wouldn't even realize the hypocrisy. We have no obligation to respect grown individuals who cannot see what a ten year old can see if that ten year old has not been indoctrinated since birth.
DrSnuggles
You label me and I'll label you
10:27 AM on 04/06/2011
Not exactly an accurate portrayal of consititutional law; but definitely an excellent description of the precepts underlying it - well said :D
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ManuOB1
A voice crying in the wilderness
09:35 AM on 04/06/2011
Wrong. The Quran is not a "symbol" of Islam, it is the heart and soul of Islam, purporting to be the very words of Allah. Perhaps desecrating the Eucharist while simultaneously burning down the Vatican might come close to evoking the outrage Muslims feel.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Powerslave Six Six Six
12:55 PM on 04/07/2011
If Muslims bought and owned the Vatican, they would be perfectly entitled to burn it.

And, you know what? No one would die...
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
OneFish
Various and assorted mutualistic microbial buddies
08:46 PM on 04/07/2011
Well, that definition is so out of step with reason as to be disregarded entirely.
05:06 AM on 04/06/2011
This the correct response. Read this:

"Our response to Muslim violence in Afghanistan, supposedly touched off by a Koran burning in Florida, uses that same canine logic. The Muslims are dangerous and violent, so whoever provokes them is held accountable for what they do. Don't tease a doberman on the other side of a chain link fence and don't tease Muslims on the other side of the border or the world. That's the takeaway from our elected and unelected officials."

"If a Christian had torched a mosque in response to the Muslim arson of churches in Africa-- is there any liberal columnist or pundit who would have directed the lion's share of the blame at the original Muslim arsonists? No. The mosque burning would be treated as an independent act with no linkage to the church arsons. That is the attitude of Western jurisprudence which does not allow one crime to justify another, let alone one provocation to justify a crime. Individuals are treated as responsible moral actors-- not shooting balls in a pinball machine. Why then does this standard fly out the window when it comes to Muslims? Why does the press so easily sink into the rhetoric of 'retaliation and 'provocation', treating Muslim terrorism as a reflex, rather than a chosen act."

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2011/04/muslims-and-moral-handicaps.html
photo
JohnFromCensornati
Free your mind and your ass will follow.
10:41 PM on 04/05/2011
"The World Trade Center was also a symbol -- of American imperialism -- and thus targeted for destruction by al Qaeda. If burning books is "expression," how about burning office towers with workers in them? We are much more upset at the idea of homicidal self expression than at the burning of books."

Yes. That absolutely is a form of expression and I think we *should be* more upset about homicide than burning books especially in a time when so much is digital. I think that we have our priorities right in outlawing homicidal self expression.
photo
JohnFromCensornati
Free your mind and your ass will follow.
10:26 PM on 04/05/2011
Please feel free to look at the Citizens United or Phelps vs Snyder cases and then tell us that you believe that the Supreme Court would rule against Terry. They ruled 8-1 in favor of WBC.

"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and -- as it did here -- inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a nation we have chosen a different course -- to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."

Before the inevitable "just because you can doesn't mean you should" comment arrives, just let me say that that isn't relevant. The author says that Terry is guilty of a crime. He isn't.
08:39 PM on 04/05/2011
I spent several months reading two versions cover to cover. What I noticed most profoundly was the constant bullying of the reader. I'm sure there is a term for it but it appears to follow classic methods of brainwashing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_control

Not really surprising given that the intent was control, or if you prefer submission. I'm not trying to be provocative here. Someday, someone will have the balls to write a serious critic of the text from a psycological and neurlogical point of view.

Until we step up and get adult about the text we will continue to play timidly in the corner with our scrabble pieces.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
BoudiccaBlanc
~Yes, my micro-bio is emply! ~
09:23 PM on 04/05/2011
I don't know about a "physical and neurological" view but someone has written about the quran from a linguistic view...

"The Evolution and Origin of the Language of the Koran"
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2011/04/god-does-not-speak-arabic-part-1.html#more
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nk5otr
08:20 PM on 04/05/2011
Does this mean the pastor has to give the car back?

NJ dealer who gave pastor car denounces Quran burn

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/04/01/2146087/dealer-who-gave-pastor-car-denounces.html
07:34 PM on 04/05/2011
The "Fire in a crowded theater" verdict was overturned in the 1969 case of Brandenburg vs. Ohio.

Curiously, the types of people that are trotting out this old chestnut in order to frame a peaceful protester (burning a book is a peaceful protest) as a murderer seem to be the same types of people that would happily hand out fliers protesting a military draft YET the purpose of the Schenck case was to PREVENT people from protesting the draft during times of war.

see for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

So, by bringing up "shouting "fire" in a crowded theater" you are all solidly on the side of extreme conservatives who wish to ban all forms of protest against the government.
09:23 PM on 04/05/2011
Because it is in the constitution, we can then excuse it, no matter what the consequences? Intent does matter. Terry's intent was not peaceful. He was indeed warned what the consequences of his actions might be, and he decided to ignore the warnings. He is as guilty as can be, if not legally, then morally.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
OneFish
Various and assorted mutualistic microbial buddies
10:03 PM on 04/05/2011
The people who warned him of the consequences of burning his book are guilty of attempted prior restraint of speech, a civil rights violation in the United States. Jones is guilty of maybe a small amount of pollution. There are some rioters in Afghanistan who are guilty of murder. Stop trying to make this thing more complicated than it really is.

As far as moral guilt, you are trying to pile onto Jones, a simple idiot, the moral guilt of more than 3 decades of killing in Afghanistan that primed the event. He is guilty of nothing but poor taste.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:44 PM on 04/05/2011
Instead of respecting religion, we need to respect people.
========

I respect people who respect me. Don't you?

I don't respect religious bullies who demand respect for their ideas and customs. This is especially true of religious bullies who issue threats.

There is a bad name for those who respond to disrespect with an imitation of respect.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
OneFish
Various and assorted mutualistic microbial buddies
07:36 PM on 04/05/2011
I have to admit when Muslim proclaim that the rest of the world may not draw their prophet I consider them to be way out of line and in need of seeing their prophet mocked on an hourly basis. Freedom of expression is a right, use it or lose it.
10:16 PM on 04/05/2011
Use it no matter what the consequences? No personal responsibility?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Erewhon7
Join atheists, our non-prophet organization
06:28 PM on 04/05/2011
No court constituted of sane people (except Shariah court) would convict a person who yelled "Fire!" five thousands kilometers from the theater.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Erewhon7
Join atheists, our non-prophet organization
06:19 PM on 04/05/2011
The only persons yelling "Fire!" were the mullahs who whipped their flock into a murderous frenzy against the Infidels, and sent them out into the streets.
It is no accident that the first attack on the U.N. compound happened Friday, right after the prayers.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
BoudiccaBlanc
~Yes, my micro-bio is emply! ~
06:54 PM on 04/05/2011
That's the MO

If you backtrack to the date of Karzai "notifying" the country regarding the Qur'an burning; there was more than ample time to write and practice a fiery semon; to get your "ward heelers," potential "martyrs," etc. together and to select local targets.

The UN compound was chosen because some of the locals worked there. The soldiers were chosen because they were at that place at that time of day. Others were also targeted.

Members of your salivating mob, injured or killed = collateral damage.

"Martyr(s)" ? Another chance to relieve local tensions by a loud demonstration
and a new cycle out outrage.

The truth is; those people don't want the TAPI pipeline (they won't be benefiting from it). They don't want "foreigners" in their country and they're sick and tired of war and disruption!

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the generals messed this one up big time for America. But Cheney, et. al. have profited; so by their standards they're doing "ok".

Now....if they convince Obama to stay there until the Pashtuns/Taliban are killed off....they might get their pipeline built! /s
06:23 AM on 04/07/2011
Ah you had me until the Bush/Cheney bashing.

At least Bush didn't have so many troops in Afghanistan.

I wish we would all be out of there tomorrow. Let the Taliban have them. They can live in caves like Mohamed did, heck that's what Osama is doing.

America shouldn't put one dime into that country or Pakistan.
photo
LMPE
I connect the most dissimilar things
06:09 PM on 04/05/2011
Free speech is one thing, but pointlessly insulting another culture is hate speech. Terry Jones is no better than the Islamists who shout "Death to America" all day.

PS: the Mohammed cartoon was in Denmark, not the Netherlands.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:50 PM on 04/05/2011
It's pointless to you, but to someone who hates Islam, not pointless.

I'll bet you want to be able to say so if you hate something--even if someone might not like your saying it.
de-meme-ing
Buying USA Feeds USA, Supports/Preserves USA
08:15 PM on 04/05/2011
I have to chuckle at that, Jan. My mother hated it when I used the word "hate", oh the irony, eh? She would always chastize me. I kinda always have this unconscious guilt when I use the word. Couple that with, "Love the sinner hate the sin", and my brain gets a work out.

That said: I hate cilantro, darn it. It is like fingernails on a blackboard, or a fork raked across teeth, or someone chewing with their mouth open, slobbering and lip smacking.

That I hate it doesn't mean that I want to destroy it, nor harm it, nor the person who chews with their mouth open, or break the blackboard, or the fingernails that made the screech. I don't want to stab the person with the fork, who raked the fork against their teeth. That is the blessing of Western Civilization and it's suffrage movement away from tyranny.

My answer for cilantro would be, "I would that thou were parsely or basil, but since thou art cilantro, I will spew you from my mouth." LOL Gotta keep a sense of humor about these things.


I am sure I can find just as rational a solution regarding other irritations. Catering to the irratation, or angst, isn't going to work, because it shows no respect for me.

What Mr. Jones did was utterly irrational, but what Karzi and the protestors did was utterly incomprehensible.

Mr. Jones has become a pariah and harshly condemned. What about the others?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
OneFish
Various and assorted mutualistic microbial buddies
07:23 PM on 04/05/2011
Explain to me why you think free speech is limited to speech of which you approve or, to state it another way, why the only speech that should be allowed is speech that would be approved of by each and every listener. In this fantasy world, how is dissent possible?