American Atheists’ Pennsylvania State Director Will Desecrate the Koran if ‘Year of Religious Diversity’ Resolution Isn’t Dropped

Way to be a dick and I hope they do revoke his title.

Wow!  This guy is a disgrace to our community.  In that past few years, he has done more harm to our image than any one public representative.  We put all of this effort into gaining acceptance in the public sphere by doing our best to represent ourselves as compassionate, reasonable individuals and he continually tarnishes this image with his vile antics.

It is because of him (with a few poorly thought out retorts from Silverman himself) that I stopped following AA on my social media accounts.  When are we going to move on from the rhetoric of outright ridicule?  While I won’t go as far as saying some members of our community have become the exact people we revile for their arrogant and close minded fundamentalism, Perce, and those like him are quickly approaching this.

Frankly, I’m tired of the perpetual feed of news stories about how terrible the fundamentalists are pushing their way of life on us.  Of course there are problems, and we must point them out.  But the way to do this is through charity, compassion and reason.  Volunteer to feed the hungry, help the homeless, read to the elderly, support a secular political campaign or any other charity that you desire.  By acting and doing as opposed to saying will we change the hearts and minds of the public. 

It is not hard to think of a better response to this issue.

I like pissing people off who deserved to be pissed off.  That being written, there are several ways to go about doing so.  Using facts and logical reasoning is one way to accomplish such a goal, but this does not drive home (well enough) the point that whatever their (religious persons) sky fairy allegedly had authored is of no value to the enlightened.  Demonstrating that some ‘holy’ text is not sacrosanct to everyone helps show that elevating such a text to a higher status (for everyone, by way of the government) is inappropriate.  I’m siding with Mr. Perce on this one, and I hope he includes a bible in his demonstration as well.  WWDD – I think Dawkins would side with Mr. Perce, too.

Sorry but I disagree. Religion doesn’t get a pass. Politics, nationalism, other isms get roundly dissed, discussed, debated, etc, with no problem but for some reason, religion is supposed to be off limits. We’re taught that we ought to “respect” it. We’re taught that no matter how crazy the belief (talking snakes, magic underwear, unicorns, dragons, fairies, elves, etc) is that the person holds, we must treat it with TLC and/or approach it tenderly when discussing it.

I disagree. I hold no respect for belief in magic sky daddies (or mommies or elephants or whatever). While I respect a person’s right to hold those beliefs, I do not respect the intellect of those who do. Nor frankly, do I think I should.

Is this designed to make believers angry? More than likely so. But it’s also designed to give a voice for the frustration, disgust and anger WE have for those of us who do not hold such delusional beliefs.

Why call for his head on a platter? Isn’t that exactly what happened to another leader recently in response to an incident that wasn’t well received?

Wouldn’t it be enough for Dave to simply issue the press release disavowing this event?  Or is it that you want Ernest punished?

How is this different than PZ nailing the communion wafer?

I disagree, I don’t think Dawkins would side with Perce, not that it matters.  This isn’t productive.  At best it’s going to make atheists seem like lunatics, at worst people are going to be injured or die.  How does this accomplish anything?

If hid goal is to have a fatwa issued against him he’ll probably succeed. This kind of stuff usually results more in banding the religious together and getting the semi religious to sympathize. There are far better ways to make statements.

I have to side with those that find this completely unproductive (not to mention damaging in the PR sense). Does he have the right? Of course he does. However, it hardly does any good if our objective is to increase reason in society. Let’s say (for the sake of argument) that such actions do encourage people to drop their adulation for religion or religious texts. We must ask by what factor(s) this is achieved: via understanding reason and logic, or by the effects of ridicule and pressure? The latter do not result in more reasonable people—just those that give into peer pressure.

That point is somewhat moot anyway, since I highly doubt such actions will have the desired effect. It will just entrench people deeper into their beliefs . . . .

It just seems that there are BETTER voices for frustration, disgust and anger, than this.  We also want our voices to be EFFECTIVE, and this will not be.  It will close people off from listening.

We don’t have to hold respect for magic or fairy tales, but we SHOULD still hold onto respect for public decorum, and for the processes of civility that allow us to reach the people that we’re trying to reach.  There’s just NO WAY this is going to do that.

He’s RIGHT to be frustrated, disgusted and angry; we ALL are.  But this will only make the opposition double down. 

I think we’re making terrific progress in removing the “off-limits” label from religion, and getting it included into discussions with the other isms.  But we need to stick with the dissing, discussing and debating.  You don’t make progress with a brutal, dramatic display like this.  You just make more enemies.

  When I first read this article I thought, you’ve got to be kidding me!  Atheists have a hard enough time in this society so it doesn’t help when someone like Ernest Perce does something as stupid and childish as this.  Whipping the Koran in public? Seriously? It makes atheists look like wild-eyed loons.
   Don’t get me wrong–I am all for pointing out the illogic and foolishness in the Koran. But I just think we should do it in a civilized adult manner. Whipping a Koran in public at the State capital just makes us look like crazy a–holes.
   If Perce does this stunt I think he should step down as President of the Pa chapter of American Atheists.  He obviously has a lack of common sense and will only be hurting the Pa chapter.  

Didn’t that rattlesnake handler in Flori-DUH with the 70’s porn mustache almost start WWIII with a similar stunt?

These actions do have an effect. Sometimes expressing a little anger and pissing off a few people get others thinking, that maybe, that crap ain’t so sacred, after all.  You all shout about how it has no good effect, how the hell do you know that? You can’t possibly know  for certain how a show of defiance can effect things. How some persecuted person may gather strength and courage to know there are others fighting to.

Religion is the bane of humanity and an opportunity in which to spit in it’s eye, should be taken at every chance. Religion shouldn’t be given any respect. Delusional thinking should not be rewarded, respected, protected or coddled.

I think it is stupid to be trying to out whine the religious about how outrages this is.

One of the greatest lessons I learned in my life started out by me being offended. It was a lesson I needed to learn and I am better off for it. Sometimes offending people, sometimes pushing back is exactly what’s needed.

I wouldn’t do it this way, I might not like the way he’s trying to get his point across. I defend his right to do it, though. Nobody has the right to not be offended.  Until being religious makes people laughingstocks,  religion will maintain it’s control over humanities future. Which is in pretty crappy condition and not looking very good.

Tim Minchin does an excellent little piece in his shows about the Koran and the reverance it is (mistakenly) given.  The audience is practically gripped in fear the whole time he is talking about it waiting for the world to stop. Very funny indeed.

 I think the members of American Atheists have a right to be concerned here.  Regardless of the tone argument (And I do think this is an inappropriate way to express displeasure over the resolution), the simple fact is that an organization cannot function if directors of that organization use their title to go “off-message” and claim the full support of the organization before that support exists.

Even if Dave disavows this event itself, it’s going to become increasingly hard to do so if Ernest keeps doing things like this (And this isn’t the first time he’s gone off-message while using an organization’s name).

>If any of you attend that protest, I will personally flog you. (And not in a fun way.)

If we can just find a way to involve Chris Mooney in that little S&M session, then my atheist fantasy will be complete.  For bonus points, get Greta Christina to stand in the corner and call me scum.

But yeah, this guy is just silly.

If he were to do this, of course it is an extreme course of action but if, as a result, he receives death threats or is murdered, that would only serve to show beyond any doubt (as if we weren’t already aware of the situation) that religion is to not be respected. It would show that the Islamic faith is a sickness upon the mind and that its devout followers who are willing to kill are the scum of the earth, and more people should stand up to this tyrannical, remorseless, vile, murderous belief system.

Why is it so difficult for you people to understand the simple fact that
by attacking this guy you are basically indorsing the religious
stupidity in which they consider mere books to be magical and “special”?
Let him destroy the darn thing or do whatever to it. The people need to realize that it is JUST a book and nothing more. You defending it just makes them
think that even atheists see those books as sacred. You’re the ones
doing the harm here, not the guy who wants to tear up some meaningless
paper…

Burning, or in this case, destroying books, is one of the worst forms of censorship.   It’s a direct attack on the freedom of press and religion, also attack an history and diversity.  It makes me sick.    I can’t, and won’t, get on board with any protest that involves destroying books. 

Books are regularly destroyed – old library books, damaged/unsold new publications.

It is only when ALL copies of a book are eradicated – regardless of ownership and against the will of the owners – that it becomes a crime.

Burning paper is still better than burning people.
 

Ernest Perce V is just taking advantage of the absolute cowardice of some politicians.
Would there be all this fuss if someone wanted to burn a copy (copy!) of Shakespeare?

this is actually quite clever, they can:
a)  buckle under out of fear of muslims retaliation,
b) condemn him but admit that he owns the copy and can do what he likes with it
c)  put political pressure – again out 0f fear – flouting the constitution and disgracing themselves.

Fascinating, I wonder what they will decide …

 I don’t think it’s reasonable to destroy a book or react to the destruction of a book the way people do. The reason for the destruction becomes the emotional reaction. However, if the reaction is not the one intended by the people it intends to drive to such a reaction, then it was ineffective and should probably not be done, not because it’s wrong to destroy a book but because the wrong people take it the wrong way, and to target the right emotions in the right people, to react in the way intended, one has to think of a different way to get the message across.

Reason and logic – you are supposing everyone reacts with reason and logic. When so many of the wrong people and the right people think the guy is a monster to suggest any such thing, you are dealing with emotion, not reason and logic.

 A book symbolizes something, all that you said, but it’s still just a thing. He’s not destroying the medium of collecting thoughts and ideas and principles, and he’s not destroying those principles, whether he destroys the Koran or the Declaration of Independence. It’s not a precious item that holds any power in itself, or a singular item preserved for posterity.

I’m not justifying them. I was completely appalled that people were killed over an accident. Even if desecrating the book was intentional it would have been a disgusting act. My point is that this guy is well aware of what happened a few months ago and is intentionally not just endangering his own life, but potentially the lives of others to make a point that no one even seems to get. There are productive ways to protest something but throwing a fit and wailing on a book isn’t the best idea. If it’s the year of the bible, why isn’t he attacking that? It’s as though he wants to bring online trolling to the real world.

 I have never said we don’t have the right to criticize him.  I have given him my opinion on this as well. 

How do you know he used the organization’s name? I think we are well aware of the fact that the press doesn’t always get things right. I am exhibit “A” for that proposition.

You don’t have to beat, whip, tear, or burn holy books in order to highlight they don’t deserve respect.  All you have to do is read them.

 Yeah, if there’s anything that proves the righteousness of your cause, it’s beating people who don’t agree with you!

After you finish flogging a book, that is.

 Which, in effect, is the entire purpose of the exercise. Or, put another way, if an abortion provider gets murdered, is it his fault for provoking the tender, child-like sensibilities of the murderer, or the murderer’s fault for killing a person?

Mimicking the barbarism of religion. Hmm… He makes a point–whatever the point is–by flogging a book. Indonesia makes a point by arresting a man who was beaten by a mob and throwing him in jail for 30 months for being an out-atheist. I don’t get it. What’s being mimicked, exactly?

Oh, I know. I was pretending to proposition our dear brother in arms.

 Yup. Like PZ Myers should step down from FTB for doing similar but less elaborate things to a Koran…

 Seriously?  What Would Dawkins Do?

Seems that theists are partly right when they say that Dawkins is the “atheist pope.”  I hope you learn to think for yourself instead of deffering to the opinion of authorities.

Many people are making the comparison to PZ’s desecration of a communion wafer and asking why it was OK for PZ but not for Ernest. Here’s the difference:

The purpose of PZ’s desecration was to send the message that nothing is sacred. He did this by taking something supposedly sacred and treating it with the respect it deserves: none. (He also tossed in a few pages of “The God Delusion” for good measure.)

The purpose of Ernest’s stunt is to protest the “Year of Religious Diversity” resolution. He is doing this by doing something incredibly far removed from the resolution. How exactly does flogging a Qur’an show contempt for the resolution? How does getting Islamic fundamentalists mad at you in any way lead to Pennsylvania reversing it’s decision.

The connection between the protest and the purpose of the protests is vague to non-existent and what most people will see is just a crazy guy who hates Islam. His ultimatum to the state makes no sense: “Repleal the resolution or I will do something to offend fundamentalists and make them hate me.” Why should the state care or have any sympathy for him?

If he wanted to do a demonstration to express our right to destroy Qur’ans or to make a point that people do not have to respect other religions (a la “Draw Muhammad Day”), then he’d be on the right track. Wit this demonstration he just looks like a loon.

PS: I absolutely DO condemn the fanatics that will no doubt call for his death if Ernest follows through wit this. Their actions are MUCH worse than a kook whipping a book. I just prefer that our side is not represented by kooks.

The Wafer is a Christian symbol, and Christians, as you well know, are a powerful supermajority in the country, while Muslims are a minority often subjected to discrimination that has nothing to do with reason versus religion. PZ also destroyed symbols of Islan and atheism to make the larger point that objects should not be valued over people. Perce is protesting a statement of religious diversity by destroying the holy book of the most hated religion in America, instead of any of the other holy books covered, instead of the Bible, instead of destroying a Bible in response to the original Year of the Bible resolution.

Instead of imitating the very people we despise by burning books, perhaps he should lead a presentation reading various “pleasant” passages of the koran that tells unbelievers what they’ll experience, and what a sadistic piece of work Allah is. In my view, THIS is how you’re meant to pwn religious books.

There are few comments here suggesting that Perce may not have intentionally associated this with AA, the media may be responsible for that. Certainly the story linked above does it’s level best to make both Perce and AA look bad, displaying the terribly ill though “Obey your Masters” billboard and linking directly to the AA website. It not only makes AA, but also all atheists, look like hateful bigots like Perce. But is it at all likely that they just dredged this up and wrote the story in a vacuum? Or did Perce send them a press release? And knowing how the media tend to respond to the slew of press releases they get every day from every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a story to flog, is it not exceedingly likely that the only way he got their attention was by putting that press release on AA letterhead? I’d like an answer to that question. And yes, I’d like to see Perce replaced. There’s nothing wrong with criticizing Islam, but there’s something very wrong with singling Islam out among all other religions because of personal hatred and fear, which I think is very much what Perce is doing. Even if that’ s not intentional, that’s the message he sends. Whether due to hate or incompetence, he’s doing a terrible job of representing American Atheists.

Ernest has a long history and a reputation for such antics. I know him personally and it seems as if his only goal is to piss off believers and tally up death threats as if they were a score of how great an atheist he is (this is something that people who know him hear from his own mouth). If that is his only goal then he is doing great but it doesn’t do much for the movement.

Agreed. It seems to me like Perce is doing this as a threat to the House, as in, if you don’t do what I want, I will insight the wrath of crazy people!
Otherwise it doesn’t make sense. If you don’t drop this Year of the Bible thing, I’ll whip a different holy book that you don’t care about.

Either way, it’s a really stupid point to make. I’d be more in support of this if it was someone in a Muslim country protesting the horrors of Islam. But he’s making a really stupid point in a very dangerous way. Not cool.

Not a good analogy. Abortion is something that happens every day. The doctors doing it recognize that it needs to happen. Even if someone disagrees with it and is horrified by it, they know that killing one abortion doctor won’t stop abortions in the country.

Whipping the Koran is not very common. Muslims see that and they see an evil person and his “followers” that need to be dealt with. And for Perce, there is no need whatsoever to do it in the first place. It is a stupid point he’s trying to make and no one will be harmed in any way if he doesn’t do it.
An abortion provider risks his/her life to help women in need. Perce is risking his life and potentially other lives to make a stupid point that he could make much more effectively in other ways if he just thought about it for a few seconds.

False dichotomy? Yet you continuously claim that something is wrong when in fact it is not. It is his book and he has the right to do whatever he wants to to it. End of story!

By attacking him for what some morons might do you are in fact endorsing their sick behavior! You are sending them a message that they are right and that they should kill people when someone destroys a bit of paper!

As for “how it looks” I really don’t care! What i do care is what is right and what is wrong!

Destroying a book you bought -> RIGHT!
Killing people because someone destroyed his own book -> WRONG!

And that is all there is too it. Talking about what they believe is endorsing their sickness. No. Enough. They need to get the message that they can not and do not have the right to behave that way no matter what crap they believe! And they need to hear this loud and clear.

 “no one is doing anything to criticize or penalize the morons but all of
you are crucifying the man who is not doing anything wrong!”

You’re right. Matt Parker and Trey Stone were criticized and arrested while Jesse Curtis Morton, they guy who threatened them, was ignored.

Or was it the other way around…

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/south-park-extremist-sentenced

Perhaps the world is more complicated than you think it is. If that idea troubles you so much that you need to resort to copious exclamation points, randomly cap-screamed words, and insults, then perhaps that indicates something about your beliefs regarding the actual strength of your underlying argument. 

This isn’t the first time I’ve argued this point, with people who were much better at making your argument than you seem to be. I wasn’t convinced then either, though at least they gave me some food for thought. If you expect to be taken seriously, you should take a page from them.

 Point taken.

Though a lot of the worst violence in those cases is in the Middle East and I agree that they are FAR too lax against the extremists. In the states, not so much.

Another approach to the situation:

Print out a copy of the Koran yourself and then desecrate the printed pages in some way.  You would then be clearly making a statement about the futility of getting upset over the destruction of “sacred” texts while not making it about a particular group of people.

I can imagine somebody making a computer virus that prints out pages of the Koran automatically.  This is illegal, of course, but I’m curious to see what would happen to the printed pages if this tactic was used in a predominately Muslim country.

Interesting food for thought, Predrag. Thanks for the POV.

Was thinking that myself. But in order to really send the message, it can’t be just 1 bible and a koran. It needs to be several bibles (there are several different versions, perhaps 1 of each), and a book of mormon, and a koran, maybe a scientology text if he can get his hands on one, and a manual from the COTFSM.

I adore Tim Minchin! He has another skit where he sings a song about loving Jesus so let’s kill the gays… then he rips on the audience for not following him there

So you come up with an example where an action is clearly a communication to the bad guy and therefore assistance and you think that is an appropriate comparison? Do I really have to explain why using something to show the Nazi where people are is different from destroying a book when someone bitched about it on another continent before hand and wants to control your life by threatening to kill if you do something that is, I repeat, NOT wrong?

As for the meth head, where is the correlation between the laughter and him being an idiot and shooting? Can you prove that he would not have shot otherwise?

But to get back at the issue at hand, WHY isn’t anyone answering my simple question: If i tell you that I will kill people if you EVER go online again, will you do it? (and let’s assume that I have means to know if you do)

Would you do it? How about if you eat ice cream? Or if you take more than one shower a month? Or if you kiss your partner? Or… ad infinitum.

Where do you draw the line?

Today they will kill for a book, what about tomorrow? Maybe they will kill if all western women do not wear burkas? Maybe for premarital sex? Maybe for gay marriage, women driving, who knows what sick people who are willing to kill over a book, a stupid book at that, will come up with in the future!

Where do you draw the line?Would you all be so willing to attack a woman in a mini skirt if they threaten to kill if women do not wear burkas?

Would you be willing to attack a gay couple for being open in public if they threaten to kill for that?Where do you draw the line and most importantly WHY?

I guarantee that you would NOT attack anyone in the examples I just gave, so why do you attack someone who wants to destroy HIS OWN book, HIS property? Why?

You all keep saying that the reason is “they will kill someone”, so please, answer would you behave the same if they threaten to kill for anything else, like the stuff above that I listed or anything else for that matter.

Where and why do you draw the line?

“I wouldn’t do it this way, I might not like the way he’s trying to get his point across. I defend his right to do it, though.” – thank you! Exactly my point.

Capitalizing one or two words is not caps lock. It is a replacement for bold. Caps lock would be a whole sentence or a better part of a sentence.

You keep making the same mistake over and over again by saying “when you know” because you can not know. You can never KNOW (emphasis) that someone will actually do something just because they said it. But I digress. I explained it below, so it would be rather stupid to repeat it here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/07/16/american-atheists-pennsylvania-state-director-will-desecrate-the-koran-if-year-of-the-bible-resolution-isnt-dropped/#comment-590428663

We don’t live on the internet…It’s not interesting at all that he hasn’t answered your question yet. It just means he’s been doing other things.

he took the time to answer the one after that, i wouldexpecta chronological approach…

If i tell you that I will kill people if you EVER go online again, will you do it? (and let’s assume that I have means to know if you do)

There are lots of reasons this question is not on-point. Let’s go through them, shall we?

First off, comparing an activity like “going online” with desecrating a Qur’an is like juxtaposing apples and bricks. For many people, their livelihood, not to mention communities they are members of, are online. There is an entire rich world of activity that many people enjoy and depend upon. Nobody depends on being able to desecrate a Qur’an; the activity does not support anyone’s livelihood, and does not support the existence of any community. So right off the bat, they aren’t on the same playing field. They aren’t even the same sport. 

Now, nobody is saying, so far as I can tell, that the people who kill over a book are not in any way fully responsible for their act. Murder is murder. Nobody is arguing, either, that a person who wishes to desecrate a Qur’an that they possess doesn’t or shouldn’t have the legal right to do with it what they wish. A person certainly has the legal right to burn every book they own if they so choose. In light of that, the only real question before us is what moral obligations does the person who intends to desecrate have, if any. You’ve been arguing rather strenuously that they don’t. It’s a simple matter of property, you say, destroying a book is no big deal. Your argument hinges on the simple (and I think, incredibly mistaken) assumption that there is no possible moral dimension to destroying one’s own property. We’ll get to why a few paragraphs down.

Now, those being the parameters of the discussion, and your claims therein (as best as I can tell, anyway), your Internet question seems kind of besides the point. I understand that your concern is a slippery slope sort of escalation, where if yesterday the heckler’s veto stopped us from burning a Qur’an, what will tomorrow bring? But it’s a silly point primarily because burning a Qur’an is an activity quite unlike all the others you listed in one important respect. It has no intrinsic value. As I said earlier, destroying Qur’ans doesn’t make a person’s livelihood and can’t create a community. Nobody’s life will be ruined, nobody’s days shortened, by them refraining from burning a Qur’an. It has only one value dimension, which is extrinsic; it is a symbolic expression that is extremely good at pissing off people half a world away. That is all it is good for. All the other behaviors you list are for some positive, intrinsic end. Even the ice cream brings pleasure to the person who eats it, and eating it doesn’t in itself piss anyone else off to the point where they might murder someone (which is the other reason your hypo is extremely silly; you’re comparing activities that either nobody has a problem with or has a large amount of intrinsic value with an act which has neither status).

A major part you seem to be missing from this equation (and one serious reason why your so-called killer “simple question” is not simple) is that I live in a society that has rules and mechanisms to enforce those rules. If you live in the US and make such a threat, I can avail myself of the legal system to neutralize your threat with a decent amount of confidence. Even if you were to successfully carry out your threat, it is likely that you would be prosecuted in our fine justice system. The asshats in Afghanistan who get bent out of shape about a desecrated Qur’an have no such recourse. They have no rational belief that if someone destroys something of value to them (like the Qur’an is, and whether you or I think it is silly to care so much about a book is irrelevant; they do care), that there will ever be any address to their complaint. A feeling of relative powerlessness is what drives calls to violence; if you can’t get restitution through official structures, people will use cruder methods. That’s why we have courts and such to begin with. This asymmetry of means makes the moral landscape a bit more complex, not to mention the fact that we’ve been setting a few Muslim countries on fire from air for a good while now. Perhaps there might be a different level of fraught when an American from a position of safety and impunity antagonizes someone as opposed to it being up-close-and-personal?

Coming back to your property point for a second, there’s an economics concept called externality which is apropos for explaining why I think your intuitions are wrong. An externality, in economics terms, is simply a cost or a benefit incurred by an act to an uninvolved third party. Most acts and transactions have externalities, but they tend to be small. Occasionally, though, they aren’t small. Say you want to burn trash and refuse on your property. Hey, it’s your property, right? But the fumes are carried by wind out of your property onto the sidewalk, and it triggers an asthma attack in a bystander. That bystander has just suffered a cost, an externality of your purely private act. Pollution is a classic major externality. Most regulations of property and  market that are actually beneficial tend to be oriented towards controlling externalities so that these negative third-party effects can be minimized. To apply the concept, while destroying your very own copy of a Qur’an may be a purely private act, when it is publicized it carries with it massive externalities. In light of that, just because you can do it doesn’t mean the costs aren’t real, aren’t borne (mostly by other people), and aren’t your fault. That the actual consequence of your act is carried out by another does not diminish in any way the responsibility that both of you bear. You never answered my point; if I put a gun in a distraught person’s hand and point them at a target that is causing them stress, do I bear no responsibility for what follows? That seems to be what your argument boils down to. That, to me, seems morally obtuse.

And to answer your ridiculous hypothetical question, yes. If you threatened to kill random people unless I didn’t go online, and I was reasonably certain you had both the means and the intent to carry out your threat successfully, I wouldn’t go online. For the simple reason that going online is a luxury which is not worth anyone else’s life to have. Would you, just to “make a point”? How so very brave of you.

The examples I made were not meant to be perfect analogies. They were meant to illustrate that morality depends on the situation. Something that is right in one situation can be a very bad thing in another.
I didn’t specifically mention gay marriage, burkas, etc, because I thought I covered that when I explained that I would support this kind of protest if it was protesting a bigger issue.
Once again, morality depends on the situation. Just because I don’t support destroying the Koran in this situation doesn’t mean I would never support destroying the Koran. Just because I am okay with giving into their demands by not destroying something sacred to them does not mean I would give into any demands they make.
Any situation you give me, I will have a different opinion, *depending on the situation*.
I am against it in this situation because he is doing it in an offensive, public way (as in, not just for home decoration purposes), it could inspire violence and people other than himself could get hurt, and (here is the key issue) it is completely pointless.

Fine, the one example you took, the internet one is not easily comparable, although I thought the point that I was trying to make was clear. But, apparently it wasn’t which is why I extended to other more comparable examples, like the one with my book-shelf: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/07/16/american-atheists-pennsylvania-state-director-will-desecrate-the-koran-if-year-of-the-bible-resolution-isnt-dropped/#comment-590487088

However, yes, I would keep going online, I would keep making my book-shelf and whatever else. I am not willing to give up my freedom because some morons are morons. And the society of which you speak of is responsible for providing us with the possibility to keep our freedom and not bow down to moronic demands. Remember the “we do not negotiate with terrorists” policy?

And no, I do not believe that you would simply never go online ever again. Sorry, but I will never believe that even if you do write it. The reason you wrote that you wouldn’t is because you believe that your justice system would catch me eventually and then you would be free to continue. The point here is exactly the opposite, their threat is eternal and as long as we comply we are justifying their stupid demands.

FYI, I do not live but I visit several times a year a country where I get threats almost weekly. All because I dared to say that I am an atheist and that religion is wrong. I do not live in the US where I can count on the legal system to take care of these problems for me. The legal system in my country turned me flat down.

As for “what will tomorrow bring?”, it is anything but a silly point because they are already attacking activities that we take for granted, like forcing women to wear burkas, not drive, killing gays and so on. It is perfectly conceivable that tomorrow they will wheaten to kill if our women do not wear burkas for example, or if they continue to drive, vote and so on. Saying that those things are more important is a silly point because, even though they are, they are still our freedom and our right, just as is the right of Ernest to destroy his book. Either we protect our rights, united, or we will loose them one by one. Someone will always find a reason why some freedom is better to be lost than for those morons to kill someone. And, while that is, in itself, a valid point it becomes invalid when the threat is continuous and eternal, when their stupid beliefs keep impeding our rights and liberties for ever.

As for the smoke example, I am sorry but what the heck are you talking about? Sending dangerous smoke over the fence is in no way a private act of destroying your own property. If I tear up the koran and throw it in the trash, what have I done wrong and whom have I affected? You basically wasted a huge paragraph to prove something that makes no sense for this particular discussion.

To answer your gun handing question I do not know but I would probably say yes, you do bear some responsibility, but, again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the problem at hand because you are using a singularity and comparing it to a continuous demand, a continuous blackmail. Which is the main reason why I used the examples I used above, the point was on a continuous demand and not on the activity it was against. But all the points you and a few others made fall appart in the book-shelf example. It is my common activity, and it destroys a book, let’s say kuran every time and I post pictures of that online.

Now you will probably try to change the subject towards the intent where my intent in building a book-shelf is not to offend someone while Ernest intends to piss morons off, but I already addressed that point here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/07/16/american-atheists-pennsylvania-state-director-will-desecrate-the-koran-if-year-of-the-bible-resolution-isnt-dropped/#comment-590487088

LINK PLEASE :)))

The actual comparison, if you were paying attention, was what those objects mean to the people affected by their destruction. Sentiment, emotional attachment, subjective value. A person who is serious about their religion might come to care about their holy text about as much as a person tends to care about a cherished pet. I know it’s just a huge stumbling block for you that a particular book can mean so much to another person, but it does, and so your not understanding it is emphatically your problem.

From the way you contemptuously address the very notion it seems like to you it is illegitimate for anyone to care about anything other than what you personally care about, and value anything other than what you choose to value. I prefer to take people’s actual views into account when trying to understand what is important to them. It’s just a book to you or me, it’s not just a book to them, and that is a morally relevant fact in this here discussion, whether you want it to be or not.

 I know Ernest personally.  He uses his title on nearly every communication with the public.  I doubt they had to sleuth it out of anything.  I wouldn’t be surprised if he gave them the headline.

 Are you saying that we don’t have a free-speech right to criticize someone if we don’t think they are behaving appropriately?  That’s an interesting standpoint.

 “My point is that this guy is well aware of what happened a few months
ago and is intentionally not just endangering his own life, but
potentially the lives of others to make a point that no one even seems
to get. “

This is the exact reason, this is the right thing to do. We should not have to cower in fear to the crazies, because their crazy. We need to desecrate this crap, because we need to show them we will stand for our rights and not cower in fear because of threats and intimidation.

It may not be the politically correct way, but one good way to stop a bully is to stand up to them and kick their ass if necessary.  If you want to be bullied, if you want to cower in fear, that’s your right. But we don’t all have to and that’s our right.

They may not all get it, but some do, and the few, are worth it.

We have to work at bringing people to reality. We can’t just toddle along thinking everything will work itself out.  Are fucking planet is dying and the main cause is peoples choice to deny reality. We can’t afford to stand around and watch the majority of our population wallow in delusional thinking. This isn’t about just a book, it’s about survival of the human race.

There is a much bigger picture here than just a stupid book, and a few pissed people.

I mentioned a Tim Minchin Koran piece yesterday and evidently people would like to see it (who wouldn’t!) I cannot access youtube properly from work, but if you search for ‘Tim Minchin Sacredness’ or ‘Tim Minchin Koran’ you will get the good stuff.

Enjoy!

Awesome relativistic BS approach. And what if someone
actually cares about the ice cream or the internet or
whatever else anyone may think of and then complains if you do anything
to it? Again, where do you draw the line? Why is the book more
important than something else?

It is absolute BS to “consider” anyones views if their views are
completely. It is not just a book to me it
is just a book, period. There is an objective truth
here, whether you want it to be or not. So you can stop with the “to
you” attempts because they are meaningless. I don’t care what something
is to you if it doesn’t belong to you but belongs to
me. Then you are a crazy person.

If you want to tell me that some of your books mean
so much to you that’s perfectly fine, but we are not talking about
your book, we are talking about the book that Ernest
owns.

Seriously? You’re gonna try the straw man, here? RLY?

Please show me where I EVER said you don’t have the right to be wrong? PLEASE.

Yes. Funny how expecting people to actually be able to think disappoints me every time.

You wanna play this game forever or do you wanna try to make an actual argument for a change?

Yes, a false dichotomy. To condemn Perce’s actions does not mean endorsing anything else. That’s ridiculous.

The problem is not that he is desecrating a book. It’s that he is purposely insulting people. That is not a civilised way to behave. And it’s not good saying, “well, they don’t behave in a civilised way either”. Those are the debating tactics of the school yard and do us no favours at all.Besides, if you don’t care “how it looks” then why are you even having this conversation?

” They need to get the message that they can not and do not have the right to behave that way no matter what crap they believe! And they need to hear this loud and clear.”

And you think that this is the way to do it? Grow up and pull you head out of your ass. Perce is doing this to be infalmmatory. He could have used any religious text to make his childish and pointless gesture but he chose the Quran because it would cause the most offence. If you can’t see that then you’re either being deliberately obtuse or unwittingly naive and neither option does you any favours.

I literally have no idea what you’re getting at in that first paragraph. Which point of mine do you see?

Flogging a book in public. That’s what you think is finally going to get through to a group of people who have been raised from birth to believe that Allah is great. If only it were that easy to change people’s minds. 

If this issue really boils down to whether or not he has the right to destroy a copy of a book that he owns (hint: it doesn’t) then why choose that one? Why not Lord of the Rings?

And yes, I am being condescending but it’s difficult not to when I seem to be arguing with, what I assume is a grown-ass man who is defending the actions of a spoilt brat regardless of the fact that they are being carried out by a similar grown-ass man.

This is going to be my last comment as we’re dying of column death and you’re failing to grasp the fact that condemning Perce’s actions is not the same as supporting terrorism. 

And, for the record, non-Arabs drawing Muhammed is not the same, not even to a devout Muslim as flogging a Quran in public.

As far as I am concerned, it comes down to this: what will Perce’s action achieve?

Will it convince anyone that the Muslim faith is false? No.

Will it strike a blow for secularism? No.

Will anyone die or be injured because of it? Almost certainly not.

Will it give the religious another reason to regard us as intolerant assholes? Yes.

Will it needlessly insult a huge amount of people with who we could be having meaningful, worthwhile dialogue thereby further entrenching their views and potentially harming any possibility for mutual understanding? Yes, several hundreds of thousands of times, yes.

So why bother?

And for the record, I disagree with you about Lord of the Rings as well. I hate that book.

Maybe that’s what he should do.  Read select passages in the rotunda, and ask passersby if they respect and appreciate them.

Apropos of nothing,  http://kickassapp.com/ allows you to use an “Asteroids”-like pointer to shoot at web pages you are looking at.

It occurs to me, although I am not really a psychologist, that Mr. Perce has a few internalized issues that shape his outlook on the world in an unhealthy way. “I’m more worried that if I stay silent that the energy and emotion within me will be worse to me than being attacked or even death threats!” Look at this sentence. The atrocities committed in the name of religion, and most prominently Islam in the past few years have indeed been angering- but to transform this anger into counterproductive and divisive outbursts is completely asinine.

Here is a chance to prove what the atheist community purports to be good at- challenging an illogical authority on the grounds that it is harmful to society (and particularly the atheist community) Allowing Perce to maintain his position in the face of these recent statements and actions will be viewed, to many, as condoning his methods. If our ultimate goal is to bring lost people to reason and enlightenment, to build a society based on empirical fact, educated morals, and an unending curiosity in the real world around us, this man has become contrary to that goal.

 You’re making this an emotional issue, while I’m not. The question isn’t whether the abo/pro risks his life for a good cause or bad. The question is whether he is guilty of anything if (s)he gets murdered by an angry staunch anti-abortionist, or whether it’s all on the one with the finger on the trigger.

 Technically speaking, they’re only a minority group in the US. In many parts of the world they’re the overwhelming majority and, oddly enough, given the pictures that I see, they’ve all got satellite dishes that pickup CNN.

 Let me sum this up, boys and girls- 

stoja: “If you condemn Perce you support terrorism” (which, by the way, sounds like Bush’s famous line “If you are not with us, you are against us.” a TEXTBOOK false dichotomy…)

Sindingo: “What you just said is a false dichotomy, and the message we are sending by condemning Perce is rather that we disagree with his methods, which target  ordinary, non-radical Muslims as well as radical terrorists in one fell swoop- thereby sending the message that Perce is in fact insensitive, bigoted, and on the whole illogical.”

stoja: “Nope! I’m going to completely miss your point and declare that if you do not agree with Perce, you agree with terrorists. Neener neener.”

Nicely child. Apparently lying goes for funny around here… I never said “you support terrorism”, learn to read, please.

What is this fallacious argument called “Argument from Acquaintance” 

Why don’t you ask what the goal is before making assumptions.

Don’t worry. He’s all talk. He doesn’t have the balls to do it.