21st Century Book Burning?

You're overstating your case. While the Incans had a knot-system for encoding some important information, they are not known to have ever had a fully developed written language. Likewise, the native of Easter Islands went throughout their entire statue building period without ever developing a written language. Though it may be horribly inconvenient, one can get quite a lot done without a written script of any kind.

 

My wife says volumes with the looks she gives me...

 

You're extending it from the written word to communication of any kind. For a decent bit of time humanity got by on oral tradition and images. Evidence seems to indicate that writing developed to fill a need for more sophisticated record keeping.
Cuneiform, the first known writing, was around 5500 years ago. Cities of thousands of people had been in place for thousands of years at that point.

You don't NEED to be able to write to tell people in a village how to build more houses. For the communication of complex ideas over large areas and for the recording of large amounts of detailed history you absolutely do need writing, but the things you're considering to be dependent on writing aren't. I'd agree also with Jabba-wocky's examples of cultures/societies without written languages. I'd also point out that I seem to recall that most native american groups didn't have written languages until exceedingly recently. The Cherokee, at least, didn't have a written language until 1821. The written language for Korean is only a few hundred years old I believe, although with Korea's history, I think part of that was that Chinese or Japanese was used instead for writing.

 

Afghan Protests Against Koran Burning Turn Violent

It's eerie and sublime and ludicrous all at the same time.

 

What if we put Qu'rans on all the airplanes?
That way, terrorists can't blow them up. It'd be Qu'ran-burning.

 

Good idea, SuperWatto! Next airplane trip I take, I'm packing a Qu'ran in my purse!!

I thought Muslims had to listen to the testimony of the "People of the Book," though, you know, Christians & Jews.

 

"Too stupid for life" is really the only description I can think of to describe both sets of extremists. Thunderdome seems an appropriate solution.

Edit:

Another interesting take.

 

I like Espie's plan. TWO FANATICS ENTER! ONE FANATIC LEAVES!

 

It's the old problem per my link in the atheism thread. Religiosity and poverty and ignorance are all caught up together. People who seem to be very upset about religion may in fact only be transferring their frustration about being poor and stupid.

 

I'm not quite seeing the link there....do you mean religion in general? And is this more concious or unconcious on their part?

 

In reference to that NYT graphic showing the link between religiosity and per capita GDP. I imagine a link showing literacy rates and education levels tied to per capita GDP would look somewhat similar. Relating it to people who are poor and stupid - sometimes it manifests as religious fervor.

Let's face it, there were people in Afghanistan who probably thought life under Taliban rule was paradise on earth. Why? Because those people were unimaginably poor and as a byproduct of their poverty also stupid. Blowing up priceless Buddhist monuments was the only kind of entertainment they could afford. That and publicly executing adulteresses. Rioting about book burners in Florida is just a form of nostalgia for the good old Taliban days.

 

Why are we even discussing this? A great rundown at how this whole thing with the "ground zero mosque" and "21st century book burning" is basically a media creation run amok.

 

Yes, but what, exactly, does this mean?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=237

Americans have a known tendency to fudge their answers on such polls. Many of the folks saying that religion is important to their lives could be acting in contradiction of their beliefs. I think too many Americans tend to give lip service to their beliefs in God. It's relatively easy to profess a belief in God, but it's another to live one's life in accordance with God's rules.

Republicans, who publicly pride themselves on being more religious, tend to have higher rates of divorce than democrats. Democratic states also beat out Republican states in teen pregnancy and pornopgraphy ratings as well

Here is a Marriage history of top Republicans:

And if you look at this list of Republican sex scandals, you will see that not too few involve homosexuality. Now, this is not to say that Democrats don't have their scandals, but it's not quite as two-faced as the "Religious" Republicans.

Say yeah, a lot of Americans may say that God/religion is important to their lives, but actions speak louder than words.

 

In Newty's case it's more a sociopathic/megalomaniac tendency. See, he actually believes that people need to hear what he says--even if he doesn't follow what he says. I wonder what the tendency of mental illness vs. religosity vs. being a Republican is.

 

lol@ Newt. Within the past 2 years he made a speech at some GOP gathering in which he stated that the 1st Amendment needed to be modified or else the terrorists win.

 

Mentioning long-retired has-beens like George Allen, and the like is a ridiculous stretch. Allen was a single-term Congressman, a single-term governor and a single-term Senator. He, along with various others on the list, were never by any means "top Republicans."

I think they burn Bibles fairly frequently, and we don't particularly care. Heck, a pastor burned Bibles in America last year, and nobody protested anywhere. (Amazing what 30 seconds on Google news turns up.) And of course, the US military infamously burned a bunch of Bibles in Afghanistan, again causing no protests, violence, or anger.

Anyways, this cartoon is rather insightful.

 

Americans have the freedom of speech but only to the extent where it doesn't endager others.

In the case of burning the Quran, especially as an internationally covered event, it directly endangers other Americans. But building a "mosque" near Ground Zero? It's comparing apples and oranges.

 

More like apples to unicorns, as one of these does not exist.

 

Well I would say that might be somewhat of a stretch. We're free to burn Korans, and it harms nobody, at least not directly. If someone somewhere on the other side of the world takes offense to this, they're free to counter-protest but they're not free to take up their RPG's and AK-47's and go gunning for American troops in Iraq or Afghanistan.

However, a concession to reality has to be made in that we can't expect Muslims in Third World countries to pick up overnight the principles of liberal democracy or the distinction between principled protest and mindless orgies of rage and violence. So in a way, yes it does harm our troops.

 

True; however, neither burning a book nor building a community center endagers lives, unless you happen to burn a book while it's still in someone's hands, or build a community center on top of a sleeping octogenarian... but I digress.

The maroon[sic] in Florida who wanted to burn a ream of printed and bound sheets of paper as a show of his personal beliefs has the right to do so as long as he meets all safety and fire requirements. We in the United States are granted the power of free speech. Unfortunately, within that freedom exists the freedom to be as ignorant and foolish as we choose.

The good pastor's freedoms aren't unique, though. Just as he has the right to have his opinions, those who oppose him have the right to theirs. It makes me laugh to the point of nausea when I hear someone like... oh, say Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin or Smuggler ) spew their opinions and then cry 1st Amendment foul when someone spews their counter opinions. [paraphrased] I have the right to my opinion, but you don't have the right to call me on it! To his credit, at least the Florida pastor didn't whine that people were "making" him stop. He just lied his way out of it instead.

 

Everybody is talking about rights here, but I haven't seen anyone mention that along with those rights goes the responsibility to act reasonably within those rights.

Burning a flag, a bra, a Bible or the Koran may make a statement, but sometimes one has to stop and think about what kind of a statement one is making.

I remember the artist who put a crucifixion of Christ in a bucket of urine. I don't remember his name, only what he did. It raised quite an uproar when he did it.

I also know many evangelical Christians are very rigid in their beliefs and I remember back when 7-11 stores first came out (the mid-60's), evangelical Christians took offense at the 7-11 slogan "Oh, thank Heaven for 7-11."

My point is, compare the two examples. One was worthy of complaint, while the other was a tempest in a teapot, imo.

 

Robert Mapplethorpe. The picture was called "Piss Christ".

 

The reason you haven't seen much mention of that is that when it comes to government action, you cannot force people to exercise their rights responsibly without infringing those same rights.

Consider, for example, the right to vote. I could go to the polls every years and vote for "Mickey Mouse" and "Donald Duck" as write-in candidates for every office. Most of us could agree that such an exercise of my right to vote would be irresponsible (although you could argue that Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck would do far better in office than some current office holders).

But how do you make me exercise that right responsibly? You can't.

Similarly, you can argue that burning the Quran as a protest against Islam is irresponsible, but what can the government do about it that wouldn't be infringing the burner's rights? And once you allow the government to infringe that person's rights, how do you keep them from similarly infringing your rights?

Kimball Kinnison

 

No, Merk, no one has advocated that. In fact, I'd like to point out that many of us so-called "commie-lib'rals" have voiced exactly the opposite: that people are free to be/act as ignorant as they choose. K_K's post takes me back to what I said way back at 7:36 this morning, when I wrote of people who say "others" are trying to squash their freedom of speech because the "others" don't agree with them. As my grandpa says: "That's just a load a' pigeon pucky."