4/01/2011
Freedom's Burden Part 2
The USA has no shortage of religious nut cases.
In the first Freedom's Burden post I questioned if the Westboro Baptist Church's demonstrations at soldiers' funerals with signs reading "Thank god for dead soldiers" incited violence? We had differing opinions and that's how I like it on my blog!
Yesterday, 8 UN workers and 4 Afghan citizens were killed when an angry mob attacked the UN in Mazar e Sharif. The mob was enraged by Pastor Terry Jones' burning of a Koran in his Florida church. Jones claims Islam is an intolerant and violent religion. (He says this with no trace of irony in his voice. . . ) Jones insists that in the USA, he has the constitutional right to burn a Koran.
Before he actually committed this very provocative act (at a time when the USA has military presence all over the Middle East and isn't particularly liked) Hillary Clinton and General Petreus (commanding the US military in Afghanistan) warned that a publicized Koran burning in the USA could have repercussions for Americans and westerners in Afghanistan.
What do you think? Did the pastor's burning of a Koran incite violence in Afghanistan?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
The burning of the Koran is wrong in so many ways. The burning of any book is a sign of ignorance and idiocy. The burning of a religious book is an attack on the religious tolerance which is one of the core values of most western countries (at least in theory). And doing this at a time when the US are involved in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lybia is irresponsible. For these reasons I think that the pastor is morally guilty.
But what are we discussing about here, is that moral guilt? Judging from the meaning of "incitement" I get from the dictionary, he did incite violence in Afghanistan without any doubt. Several people would probably still be alive if he hadn't burnt the Koran. He is in a way responsible for that. But should we, as a result of that, forbide actions like this one? I think not. I think this burning is covered by the freedom of speech. As wrong as the burning was, I think that we can not limit the freedom of speech just because what is said might cause some madman somewhere in the world to lose it.
I would agree that he incited violence. Even though I'm not a religious person I do understand that Muslims would take great offense to this act. I also agree that book burning or any sort is a despicable act of ignorance and intolerance.
Here in Europe, we saw how enraged Muslims became from a cartoon, so it's pretty clear that a burned Koran could lead to some serious repercussions. And the violence is not even over!
The problem with making the pastor "responsible" for the killings is that it takes away a certain degree of guilt from the murderers. Could they "understandably" be angry enough to kill innocent UN workers who had nothing to do with the act of a nut case? Of course not, which is why making him responsible for others' actions would be wrong, in my opinion.
But it makes it very difficult to protect the rights of such an asshole, doesn't it. Nevertheless, you're right, we can't curb freedom of speech but I do think there ought to be a clause for not allowing the public burning/desecration of religious symbols. In that sense, I think the Grundgesetz beats the US constitution.
I thought I would never agree with Gustav on anything, but I do now!
I think burning and desecration of religious symbols should not be banned. Such a ban would exonerate religious fanatism and put the situation on a slippery slope. (It is another matter whether such desecration is a wise and morally acceptable act.) The same should be true for other symbols, such as national flags. Many nationalists regard the flag as something sacred and want its desecration to be punished. I think, however, that this goes under freedom of expression (provided that you own the flag you are desecrating).
Religious people are often very pushy to make the state's machine of coercion and repression work for them. I do not think we should give in.
@ Maya: Surprising. And a bit scary, too :P
@ Rose-Anne: The people who committed the murders are of course completely responsible for them. Still there is a sort of guilt on the Pastor, as he could have foreseen that his provocation would lead to violence.
I understand that you feel the german laws (most notably § 166 StGB, I guess: de, en; I don't think there's something in the German Constitution about it?) to be "better" in this respect. I just don't like that law very much, as it has the potential to be used against many different forms of criticism of religions. (Though it's luckily not really applied very strictly.)
@Gustav
I don't think, he can be hold responsible for the consequences. The mentioned cartoons, some justified criticism or a parody (think of an Islamic version of the Live of Brian) could have caused the same response.
It's despicable, because burning a book is a violent act of sorts and his sole intention was, to provoke such a reaction. But the responsibility for the death rests on the killers alone. He didn't ask the to do it, so it isn't incitement of violence in a strict sense.
As to §166 STGB: Yes, there's nothing about that in the Grundgesetz. It's a debatable paragraph, and applied very rarely. When it is, it has to be applied very carefully in accordance with the GG. There are some questionable cases, where that line might have been overstepped by the courts. In a less secular society having more religious judges that could be dangerous.
What's even more questionable is the criterion of "endangering public peace". This could cause the same offence being judged differently, depending on whether followers of a religion care or are violent.
@Daniel: He's not responsible for the killings, no doubt about that. At least not in a legal sense. It was the decision of the murderers to murder. But I do think he is guilty in a moral way. If you do something that you know will very likely result in the killing of people, and you have no better reason for doing it than provocation and expressing your disgust and hatred, then you are doing wrong and therefore guilty. That does not reduce the guilt and responsibility of the murderers in any way. (And, by the way, I still think what the pastor did should be legal.)
The difference to drawing cartoons is the motivation behind it. If there is, as you say, "justified criticism", then it should of course be made. But if it is pure provocation in a situation that is already very heated, it is wrong.
I have no idea if there is a correlation between the two but if there is, then that doesn't help the Muslim population in proving their religion is not a violent one.
I think people just need to learn to accept that people have different religious beliefs and that all religions have faction groups full of nutcases.
Christians need to stop feeling the need to burn Korans because as far as I am concerned, it makes them no better than the Muslims they claim are dangerous.
Heck, at the end of the day, I am more scared of my fellow American than I am of some middle eastern terrorist. I know I have a better chance of dying at the hands of an American, than someone from another country.
Post a Comment