Perhaps not directly, leavingwt. But it seems to me like he should have left his opinion of the content out if he didn't want to be seen as apologetic.
Sam Harris - On the Freedom to Offend an Imaginary God
by cofty 93 Replies latest social current
-
-
King Solomon
People forget that the battles between islamists and Xians had been going on for hundreds of years BEFORE our Founding Fathers established freedom of religion in America; hence, they made a strong statement against extremist's intolerance of other's religions, as well. Unfortunately, that message is lost/ignored by many nowadays.
It's funny, as you don't hear of militant atheists engaging in suicide bombing, etc, when you DO hear of Xians killing Muslims, and vice-versa, etc. Hmmm, why might THAT be?
-
NewChapter
Adding gods to the mix always ups the stakes.
-
dontplaceliterature
Imaginary people hard to defend, so it's easy to just resort to violence to get your point accross.
-
leavingwt
Professor Posner is not a fan of strong free speech rights. Here are his thoughts.
-
tec
I don't think it says anything about the individuals, Tammy, but is rather a commentary on the belief system itself. So to insinuate that this would lead to racism isn't fair.
Lumping all people into one view or category based on race or religion (especially in a negative light) is a form of racism, isn't it? Especially when that view condemns all for the actions of a few.
For sure, a person can speak about a religion without being racist. That can be and is debated. But that is not what i was talking about.
Peace,
tammy
-
King Solomon
Lumping all people into one view or category based on race or religion (especially in a negative light) is a form of racism, isn't it?
No. Racism (discrimination on the basis of racial origin) is a form of BIGOTRY. Religious intolerance is also a form of bigotry.
-
tec
Okay.
What if your race and your religion are tied together?
Maybe there is a separate name for that... like anti-semitism for Jews?
-
OnTheWayOut
I would say that most of the people who burn qurans (or some equivalent) WANT a reaction; probably want a fight too.
Peace,
tammy
I will defend freedom of speech. I see nothing wrong with making an anti-Islam video. But I have to marginally agree with Tammy that the people we see burning holy books are wanting a reaction. I only agree marginally because I have burned Watchtower materials. I have done it by myself and I have done it with a bunch of JW's. I didn't do it for a reaction from JW's as they never knew of my burning their materials.
But when it is done with some kind of press coverage or youtube presentation, it is hoped that a reaction will break out.
I am saddened by the loss of even one life, especially the innocent. But for that, I would agree that provoking their reactions is the way to expose these radical Muslims. I would never go so far in my objection to blame the filmmakers and book-burners for the harm caused by the retaliation. If we do that, then we might as well allow ourselves to be run over by the government because we don't want anyone hurt by our protesting.
In short, I wouldn't burn the Quran to provoke violence, but maybe others are right to do so.
-
dontplaceliterature
Those exercising violence and using violent rhetoric are hardly "few", Tammy.