Limits to tolerance

A Wikipedia article informs the world about 'International Burn a Koran Day - planned for September 11, 2010 by Dove World Outreach Center to protest militant Islam aggression by burning copies of the Qur'an. The event was announced in July 2010 by pastor Terry Jones of the non-denominational charismatic Christian church in Gainesville, Florida to coincide with the ninth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks, and the event has been widely condemned by politicians and religious groups, however, Jones has also received support for his initiative, having been sent two hundred copies of the Koran, and gaining support from thousands on the social networking site Facebook.'

The international media has picked up on this and it has attracted condemnatory comments from national leaders and even by Genreal Petraeus over in Afghanistan, who points out how the outrage at such a proposition, let alone its actuality, will place more lives at risk, motivating even more retaliation, not just in the war zone, but all over the world. This morning the UK tech blog 'The Register carried the news that church's website was no longer available on-line. Whether because the Internet Service Providor has pulled the plug, or the site has been hacked is not yet known. Non extremist Muslims promise to distribute 200,000 copies of the Qu'ran to replace the 200 sent for burning, and why not? There'll be even more interest shown in reading a copy of a book deemed fit for burning.

It's hard to think of this religious group as being anything other than a hostle extremist sect, as evil in their intent as the very groups they regard themselves as protesting against. They represent the very thing that secularisers like Richard Dawkins, relish to get in their sights and attack them as if this kind of body represented most the world's conservative Christians, let alone others who aren't Condemnation and dissociation by other Christians achieves little. The question is, what kind of action can be taken, that doesn't get accused of being an attack on free speech or persecution of people for their beliefs?
 

To my mind this initiative constitutes a clear incitement to religious hatred. Can Federal US law address this, or is the American legislature wary of its right wing moral majority? I'd like to think there were grounds for action to inhibit this protest in UK law, if it happened here. It's right that all people of good will work at the process of increasing respect for each others beliefs in order to learn how to live better with differences. But it is also right to have some socal and legal process that discourages and prevents the cultivation of ill- will, and puts public order, stability and peace at risk.

It's not against the law to burn books. Remaindered books not destroyed for recycling materials may be used as fuel, as they are cheap enough. Redundant damaged old bibles are a cleric's nightmare, as it's not unusual for them to be received from families who inherit them from deceased relatives and don't know what to do with them, when they have no use for them, as they feel guilty about trashing them. This surplus of sacred texts is a legacy of the age of printing and universal literature distribution. Before printing,in some cultures ,old and redundant sacred texts on parchment or vellum were overwritten, and if beyond re-use would be stored, even buried, like the Dead Sea Scrolls. I don't know what Muslims do with old copies of the Qu'ran, or if they have the same practical problems about disposing them at the end of their useful life. But these are side issues.

The concern here is about deliberate burning as an expression of contempt and condemnation. It's not  only refusal of one religious group to dialogue with others, it's an act of confrontation and incitement to hatred, which gives offence to most, and will bring back hatred in reaction upon their own heads. If this isn't as illegal as fomenting race hated, why isn't it? Surely it would be possible to ban such an activity from the public realm? What the sect does about this in its own private domain may be beyond the reach of the law, so long as children and vulnerable adults are not endangered or health and safety regulations ignored. The media will either steer clear of publicising a private event or not, depending on their political agenda. Speech may be free, but not everything that's said is worth listening to or promotes the world's well being. 

Let's hope that the sound judgement of the moderate majority prevails in this nasty affair.

This afternoon, Slashdot reports that Rackspace, major American internet hosting company, took down the 'Dove' church websites. "The center violated the hate-speech provision of our acceptable-use policy," explained Rackspace spokesman Dan Goodgame. "This is not a constitutional issue. This is a contract issue."  Funny how long it took them to notice.  Anyway, they've done the right thing. I wonder if relgious fundamentalist websites hosting virulent anti-gay propaganda (like 'the God hates fags ' site) will also get taken down?