Okay, let's try this example then: Suppose you're an artist, you put a lot of time effort and meaning into a particular painting, only to find that I then defaced your painting and made a rude joke out of it. You will be upset, even if that painting didn't mean anything to me, you'll still be hurt because it did mean a lot to you.
If you thought carrots were holy and were offended by me eating them I would like to think I would at least have the courtesy not to rub it in your face that I was eating them.
My stance on the matter: he posted a video that was intended to offend religious persons, it offended religious persons. Why is this a big deal and why are we debating it.
Freedom of speech is all well and good, but people should be free to speak back as well. Why is it okay for him to post the video, but not okay for the religious leaders to speak out against it?
The other thing I'm curious about: how does your stance on censorship tie in to your role as forum administrator? (can move this discussion to PMs if that's more appropriate)
Pluspoints for good metaphores!
Problem, of course, lies in mutual respect. If I consider apples to be sacred, and you smash apples in a slo-mo vid on youtube (just because you can/thinks its cool/the holy CARROT told you to destroy all heathens) then what motivates me to be respectful towards you? And to put it in a bigger scale, someone worshiping the holy carrots smash apples post a video about it. In retaliation, some apple worshipers burn down a carrot plantation. Point being, I'm sure that many non-islamic people (not just christians, jews, etc) have sometimes been offended by actions in the name of religion. Now swap islamic with christian, rinse and repeat. The actions of one individual, or a smaller group (like the congregation in Florida) should not represent a faith/nation/even a community, nor should a retaliation be carried out against all members of that faith/etc. But I'm pretty sure Obama warned people that such an action would cause ramifications for christian schools/churches/etc worldwide, that those people be punished for others misdeeds. And sadly, that is not without cause.
I think that as offensive as the symbolic act of burning an article of faith can be, it has completely been blown out of proportion. Far worse things are still being done today in the name of religion (not taking a swipe at religion here, it's just because it is in focus). Christians forcibly converting people in Africa (abandon your faith, you'll receive christ, food and education. Same reasoning for another religion would be to sell your soul?
) muslims hanging some homosexuals, caste-system in hindu-india... All these things affect people directly. A burning of a holy book, offensive at it might seem, is nothing compared ^. I'm a lot more offended by the fact that human rights are being ignored than that some guy wants attention and thinks he's cool by insulting the core of a religion (which I believe Seth Macfarlane does regularly. And in a pretty funny albeit not constructive way. Scandals says, as it was mentioned earlier). And of course, if you want to criticize (constructively) a religion, you should be free to do so. But book-burning isn't exactly the best option.
So to sum up my opinions:
- It's attention-seeking but not directly harmful to burn a holy book.
- The actions of one should not represent the actions of all.
- There are faaaaaar worse things going on than book-burning, though I understand why it's come up as it is such a nice symbol of the religious bashing between the US and Middle-East.
- Be respectful, gain respect in return.
Edit/PS: SG, people did burn both the Bible and the Qur'an in the middle ages, usually to start riots or purge the country to the religion (for example to expel the catholic church from England).
