Is It Just Because I'm an Evil Atheist? (Koran-burning) | 45 comments (45 topical, 0 hidden)
We All Agree It's A Bad Idea... (none / 0)

...but I think the movement to pass laws against speech begins with the idea that "People shouldn't say..."  And we're hearing a lot of that on this issue.  To me, the question of what people should or shouldn't do, what is good or bad judgment, doesn't belong in political discourse.  So while no laws are being passed here, I think when powerful political figures start speaking out about an issue in the way they are doing, it is in a gray area between the law and the truly private. 

To me, there is a subtle and vitally important difference between: "I disagree with these folks burning the Koran and here is where I think they are wrong" as opposed to saying "They SHOULDN'T burn the Koran".  I think the former statement leads to a valuable discourse.  The latter one leads to, "How can we stop them from burning the Koran?"  Then next, it's how can we stop whoever from expressing whatever idea that most of the rest of us think is a bad one.

Don't get me wrong, we can all be nearly universally agreed that the Koran-burning is a bad idea.  The issue I see is that I think the TONE of the way that bad idea is being attacked is moving in the "we must make them not do it somehow" direction instead of the more productive "here is why they are wrong and how we are going to counter their bad idea" direction.  I think we have this instinct in America that has done us a disservice in every instance, that when someone is saying something we don't like, our response is "SHHH!!!!", instead of opening a dialogue about how and why they are wrong and countering the idea, even if it is one so lame that it seems it should be necessary.  So we find ourselves now focused on these loons and what they are doing, instead of focusing on the bad ideas driving their actions that are, frankly and unfortunately, shared by a lot of Americans these days.  Because we're challenging the action and challenging the speech instead of challenging the IDEA behind it.

by mdavidboyd on 09/08/2010 05:27:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Well (none / 0)
"They SHOULDN'T burn the Koran" is very different from "They shouldn't be ALLOWED to burn the Koran".

And I think politicians should make their opinion known on things that have a political backround and are public.

"To me, the question of what people should or shouldn't do, what is good or bad judgment, doesn't belong in political discourse."

Strange idea. Politicians creat the laws that tell us even what we are and aren't allowed to do. So, in your opinion politicians shouldn't (?) tell kids to stay in school and learn and people in general to live responsibly?

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 09/08/2010 05:40:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Indeed... (none / 0)

...I agree that "They SHOULDN'T burn the Koran" is very different from "They shouldn't be ALLOWED to burn the Koran", but I think the former tends to lead to the latter, and that a better tack is COUNTER THE IDEA, rather than getting bogged down in the question of whether or not it should be expressed.

While we are highlighting perhaps subtle but very important differences, I think that there is a difference between what we are ALLOWED to do as opposed to what we SHOULD do.  Hopefully, the list of what we are allowed to do will always be longer than the list of what we should do.  The should is totally subjective.  One person may not think people should masturbate.  Another may not think people should drink alcohol. 

To answer your query, no I actually do not think politicians have any business telling kids to stay in school or people to live responsibly.  Responsibly according to who? Should Bill Gates have stayed in school? To me, how people decide to plan their lives is above the pay grade of politicians.  I think it quickly and easily crosses over to political moralizing, which is in my opinion one of the biggest problems we have.  I do not look to politicians for moral or ethical leadership, or help in developing a life plan, and I don't think any of us should, but of course, that "should" is just my subjective opinion. 

by mdavidboyd on 09/08/2010 06:12:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I think (none / 0)

countering the idea is what we are doing.  It's what Petraeus was doing.

Everything isn't a slippery slope.  We are capable of drawing lines in life.

by Spencer on 09/08/2010 06:27:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Quite contrary (none / 0)
I think "political moralizing" is really important, so you can find out what the positions of a politician are and it is part of their job to tell us what to do.
How much taxes we have to pay, what drugs we are allowed to take, in which cases we are allowed to use how much violence, where the limits of free speech are, how fast we are allowed to drive...

All these are things that politicians decide. Therefore it is important to know as much as possible about the moral framework they use to make their decisions.
The ethical development of the human race (or even the American people) is just not far enough to make Anarchy or Libertarism valuable possibilities. When you have any other system than Anarchy politicians are telling you what you are allowed to do. If they are also telling you what you should do, you can judge better in which direction they will go, when it comes to deciding what you are allowed to do.

"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."

by opposition on 09/09/2010 06:57:24 AM EST

[ Parent ]
hmmmm... (none / 0)
I think "political moralizing" is really important, so you can find out what the positions of a politician are and it is part of their job to tell us what to do.
Wow that's a scary consept... a part of a politicians job is to tell us what to do??? - really?

No it isn't my Finlandian friend :)
It's a politicians job to tell me what they think I can and cannot do when it comes to societal matters but most certainly not when it comes to personal matters... period!!!

How much taxes we have to pay
That a societal matter... the government needs taxes to pay for projects for the commen good (welfare, infrastucture, police, firedepartment, libraries, etc.)... so yes they are able to tell me what I have to pay in taxes...

What drugs we are allowed to take
That's a personal matter (as long as I don't drive under the influence, etc.)... so no they should not be able to tell me what drugs to take or not take (I know they do but that doesn't make it right)...

In which cases we are allowed to use how much violence
Violence is a societal matter... because violence per definition always infringes on someone elses rights (and your right to swing your arms violently about stops where my nose begins) and the defending of everybodys rights (especially the weaks rights from the tyranny of the strong) is probably the goverments finest reason to exist...

Where the limits of free speech are
Wow that's scary... the governments job is to decide where the limits of free speech are??? are you nuts???

Sure now it's just burning Qurans which most people agree is just stupid... but what happens when the government decides that criticism of the government falls outside of free speech... acording to you they have the right to do so... what then? what about the right to assembly... does that fall under the governments job to decide wheater it shoudl be allowed? what about...?

That's a dangerous slipping slide to go down my friend... so let me help you... the limit to free speech doesn't exist... free speech have NO!!! limits... period!!! and any government involvement in free speech issues (that isn't to protect someones free speech) better not happen on my watch (that's all I'm saying) :)

How fast we are allowed to drive
Under our limited technical application it's a societal matter because driving to fast kills people and again defending the weak from the strong is why we have a government in the first place... so yes they have the right to tell me how fast I can go in my car (but that said... in my world a much better solution to deaths in traffic would be to demand of carmakers that they build them fittet with cameras and radar and... etc. so they can't crash... but that's just me)...

Therefore it is important to know as much as possible about the moral framework they use to make their decisions
Not really... as long as they stay in their framework of limiting themselves to societal matters and staying out of personal matters their moral reasoning for doing things have no bearing only the limits they put up...

It didn't matter that Bush Jr. was Christian he still went to war, started boundless wiretappings, tortured in Quantanamo, etc...

It didn't matter that Obama was a progressive he still closed Acorn, escalated the war in Afghanistan, gave more power to the private insurance agencies with healthreform, expanded the patriot act, etc...

What you judge a politician on is what he does and what limits he put on your freedoms and not his morals... his stated morals are irrelevant... period!

The ethical development of the human race (or even the American people) is just not far enough to make Anarchy or Libertarism valuable possibilities
Wow your faith in your fellow man is really low isn't it :)
Well we have discussed this before and you know where I stand on Libertarianism and Anarchy so let's leave this one to the previous discussions... suffice to say I disagree :D

If they are also telling you what you should do, you can judge better in which direction they will go, when it comes to deciding what you are allowed to do
Like I said above... the notion that 'stated morals = actions consistent with that moral' is just so laughable it's not even funny... politicians lie and will say anything you want to hear to get you to vote for them (and that goes for all of them)... what you judge them on is not what they say but on what they do... and in that respect morals are (not to repeat myself) irrellevant :D

Love Thothlike

by Thothlike on 09/10/2010 05:38:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
But it is illegal (none / 0)
to burn books in Gainsville..  a city ordinance  prohibits the burning of books

Under Section 10-63, "Open burning and outdoor burning are prohibited in the City of Gainesville unless otherwise specifically permitted as provided by this article."

The section goes on to prohibit burning newspaper, corrugated cardboard, container board or office paper, which are akin to books.

"Where they burn books, at the end they also burn people."- Heinrich Heine


by Chinese Democracy on 09/09/2010 05:29:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
asdasd (none / 0)
What you just said is pretty much the exact definition of a Slippery Slope fallacy.

by ninespine on 09/08/2010 06:03:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Cliche that it is (none / 0)
freedom of speech exists largely to protect unpopular speech.  But in this case I'm going to use my freedom of speech to make sure that that kind of speech stays unpopular.

It only seems like people are quashing this guy's free speech because everyone reasonable is so universally against it.  There aren't a lot of voices backing this guy (other than callers on right wing radio, of course).  But if anybody ever went as far as to say that burning the Koran should be illegal, I'd be right there with you calling bullshit.

Originally I wrote more, but opposition kind of said what I was going to, and this is all sort of academic anyway, so I'll leave it at that.

(Completely unrelated side note: I love that you actually took the time to type in complete, readable sentences.  I know that sounds incredibly condescending, and that's not my intent, but it's rare enough that I feel the need to point it out, which is sad.)

by Spencer on 09/08/2010 06:22:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Is It Just Because I'm an Evil Atheist? (Koran-burning) | 45 comments (45 topical, 0 hidden)