What’s Wrong with the World

The Church itself is considering defrocking the Finnish priest? That's shameful.

as if he could do otherwise without risking his life and the lives of his people

Well, I don't know. As the quotation you give shows, Jeff, just by existing as an infidel religious leader he in a sense risks his life and the lives of his people. I imagine that going so far as to call for the U.S. to arrest Jones is the Archbp.'s idea of showing himself to be _really enthusiastically_ a dhimmi (not to mention completely clueless about what it means to live in a free country). It's not clear to me that if he'd just shut up he would have been in any special danger, any more than all the other bishops in all the other Muslim lands who haven't happened to think of and carry out that particular gesture of abject dhimmitude.

Ah, a Lutheran priest. Interesting.

Lydia, yes, defrocking the priest in Finland would be a disgrace for the church. But this priest is married with children, so I doubt he's Catholic. He's probably Orthodox or Lutheran.

As for the Catholic Archbishop in Pakistan, I would not be surprised if he received the usual demands, backed by the usual threats, from the usual Islamist butchers to say exactly what he said about Terry Jones. But who knows? He might just be trying to demonstrate as much solidarity with his overlords as his conscience will allow.

Jeff, remember when people at rock or country msic concerts used to flick their Bic's to show their approval of the performer(s)? How about an event where thousands of people Bic-flick Koran's? wouldn't that be awesome!?

Would you burn the Koran if you knew there were a strong possibility that Muslims would respond by killing Christians in other countries? Perhaps not. But what if, by the act of burning the Koran, you helped shed light on the true nature of Islam and the impossibility of pacifying Mohammedan rage?

It sounds like you are suggesting that burning a Koran, in a context where one rationally expects bloodshed to follow, is justified by the light that will be shed on Islam through such bloodshed (and other kinds of reaction too perhaps); this kind of light helping, in the long run, to do more good than bad. Is this right?

Dan, did you catch the single sentence "Perhaps not"? Doesn't that answer your question?

Yes, and no; since 'perhaps' may be a hedge, and because I don't know how else to understand the next sentence.

Stephen, I don't remember anything about "flicking your Bic" except the commercials. Sounds good to me though!

Dan is right: "perhaps" was a hedge. Burning the Koran, like any other act of warfare, may be justified in pursuit of long-range goals despite short-term consequences.

The only reason there is a danger in burning the Koran is that it has not been disrespected as regularly as it deserves--which is to say always. That's on us.

Atheist P.Z. Myers' desecration of the Koran set off no murders in Afghanistan, nor did gay artist Charles Merrill's.

Yet Pastor Jones is in the news for some reason. I'd bet it's because some in the news media love to stir up Christian-Muslim tensions.

If your Koran-burning event inflames a mob on the other side of the world, chances are you've become a pawn in someone else's game. We're better off avoiding this fate.

Don't believe anything you see on RT. Maybe some of what they said here is true, maybe even all of it is true. It's probably nowhere near the whole truth. Just don't believe anything from RT until you've checked the sources.

Jeff writes:

There is no question of consequentialism because Koran-burning, having the potential to be highly meritorious, is not an intrinsically immoral act.

Edward Gibbon's account of the strange composition of the Koran suggests that at least with respect to that book, we should worry a lot less about appeasing Muslim rage, I think. Maybe its destruction could be a meritorious deed.

Here's his description of the Koran's origin, edited from Chapter 50 of the Decline and Fall:

......A paper copy, in a volume of silk and gems, was brought down to the lowest heaven by the angel Gabriel, who, under the Jewish economy, had indeed been despatched on the most important errands; and this trusty messenger successively revealed the chapters and verses to the Arabian prophet.....

Instead of a perpetual and perfect measure of the divine will, the fragments of the Koran were produced at the discretion of Mahomet; each revelation is suited to the emergencies of his policy or passion; and all contradiction is removed by the saving maxim, that any text of Scripture is abrogated or modified by any subsequent passage. The word of God, and of the apostle, was diligently recorded by his disciples on palm-leaves and the shoulder-bones of mutton; and the pages, without order or connection, were cast into a domestic chest, in the custody of one of his wives.......

.....the various editions of the Koran assert the same miraculous privilege of a uniform and incorruptible text. In the spirit of enthusiasm or vanity, the prophet rests the truth of his mission on the merit of his book; audaciously challenges both men and angels to imitate the beauties of a single page; and presumes to assert that God alone could dictate this incomparable performance........

I have no idea whether Gibbon's sources for this ironical description were reliable. But if this account is true, and allowing for the usual levity of Gibbon's irreligious tone, there seems to be grounds for reducing our 'sensitivity' towards Muslim demands that Christians must see the Koran in the same light as they do.

I had heard that about RT and tried to do some googling to see what else I could find. I found another report that seemed independent of this one. Interestingly it confirmed that the priest is in trouble and may be defrocked but listed a weird, different reason--something to do with an international child custody case involving the smuggling of a child into Finland in somebody's trunk. Very weird. Evidently the government of Finland approves this act and the priest called it "lawlessness," and that's another part of why he's in trouble. All very strange, and apparently bound up with the fact that the priest is somewhat pro-Russian (his wife is Russian), and the govt. of Finland isn't. In this context, though, it actually fits extremely well that Islam should end up in the mix, because Muslim terrorism _does_ sometimes get mixed up in pro-Russian/anti-Russian debates these days. So I imagine the priest has made himself persona non grata in Finland--which apparently has very little notion of ordinary freedom of speech--in a variety of ways.

Jeff,

Dan is right: "perhaps" was a hedge. Burning the Koran, like any other act of warfare, may be justified in pursuit of long-range goals despite short-term consequences.

I don't think one needs to be attempting to incite further bloodshed. I believe that, as Jeff said in the main post, the act is a symbolic way of saying something--"I do not submit."

The circumstance in which I was worried that a Koran desecration would be unjustified is one where the desecrator believes that violence will probably follow such a desecration, and where the descrator's aim in such desecration is for light to be shed on Islam; not for there to be violence per se (though I suppose this is tricky, if one believes that it is precisely through such violence that the aim will be achieved). It seemed to me that in Jeff's second to last paragraph, he maintained that burning a Koran in this kind of circumstance is permissible.

However, perhaps he is not maintaining the permissibility of a desecration that is performed with this kind of aim, but rather maintaining the permissibility of a desecration that is performed with the aim of making the symbolic statement; where the shedding of light on Islam that is expected to follow through violent reactions is not part of the aim but rather a mitigating factor that keeps the expectation of such violence from undermining the permissibility of the act. I acknowledge that the two reasons I gave in the prior post do not tell against the permissibility of desecrating a Koran in a circumstance where one's aim is simply to make the symbolic statement.

Dan, I find the heavy moral and intentional import of your posts odd. It turns on its head the political struggle. It ignores the question Jeff raised about appeasement What if one burned a Koran accidentally or to stay alive while stranded on a hiking trip? Is there an allowance for that among the folks who are murdering people in response? If not, what good are your attempts at appeasement by convincing Western citizens who dont accept the Islamicist premises that religious belief and political action are inseparable by invoking heavy moral and intentional language. Do we need thought police to tell us when we'll be offending islamicists by our actions?

M. Zuhdi Jasser of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy in Arizona blamed the killings on extremist leaders who used the Koran burning as an excuse to commit violence. Shamshad Nasir, Imam of a mosque in CA, said his community “rejects any killing in the name of religion anywhere, even if it is done in the name of the most sacred scriptures.". Isn't that a good thing, and should we be undermine them by pretending that the islamicists view is a legitimate one?

Mark,
Nothing I've said suggests that there is anything wrong with burning a Koran either accidentally or out of necessity; or that the blame for murder perpetrated in response to a burning lies with the burner rather than with the murderers and those who genuinely incited them. I haven't even claimed categorically that it is wrong to burn a Koran both intentionally and publicly. I've been specific about the kind of burning I gave reasons against. Further, categorically opposing burning Korans (which I haven't) doesn't necessarily constitute any sort of "attempt at appeasement" or legitimization of an Islamic point of view, since there are other ways to oppose Islamic supremacism in addition to burning Korans (e.g., condemning the murderers instead of the burners and calling out politicians who don't, calling on the Afghan government to clean up its own house before whining about trans-Atlantic offensive speech, raising awareness of how the Koran is understood and applied in the Muslim world, etc.). To be sure, appeasers think no one should burn a Koran, but that's not what makes them appeasers; and I don't think the converse holds.

Two worries come to mind. First, it seems that burning a Koran with the expectation that violence will ensue is using other people as a means to an end.

This would be a worry only if the perpetrators of the ensuing violence were robots, rather than moral agents in their own right. If they were not robots, then Jones was not using them as means. He was not forcing them to act in a certain way, or to suffer in service of his ends.

If the murderers are not robots, then Jones has not even come close to consequentialism. All he has done is make a public statement of his own attitudes and beliefs.

Say that, rather than burning the Koran, Jones had merely said publicly, "I am a Christian, and I totally reject the Koran." Or suppose he had said only, "I am a Christian." Or suppose he had said even just, "I don't know about that stuff." From a Muslim point of view, any of these statements would have been the moral equivalent of his burning the Koran, and would equally have justified their acts of violence in response; for all of them are tantamount to rejection of Islam.

Two worries come to mind. First, it seems that burning a Koran with the expectation that violence will ensue is using other people as a means to an end.

This would be a worry only if the perpetrators of the ensuing violence were robots, rather than moral agents in their own right. If they were not robots, then Jones was not using them as means. He was not forcing them to act in a certain way, or to suffer in service of his ends.

I haven't said anything about the case of Jones. I don't know enough about what he has said about why he did it, or about how he actually did it (e.g., the manner in which he burned it, what he said in connection with doing it, etc.); and supposing for the sake of discussion that he sinned in doing what he did, it pales in comparison to the evil of the murderers and those who incited them.

Say that, rather than burning the Koran, Jones had merely said publicly, "I am a Christian, and I totally reject the Koran." Or suppose he had said only, "I am a Christian." Or suppose he had said even just, "I don't know about that stuff." From a Muslim point of view, any of these statements would have been the moral equivalent of his burning the Koran, and would equally have justified their acts of violence in response; for all of them are tantamount to rejection of Islam.

Of course, if Jones had only done something like that, probably both the media and the Muslim world would have never known. I would agree that pretty much anything a Christian might say in defense of his own beliefs and/or against Islam is such that various authority figures in the Muslim world could, given enough effort and ingenuity, foment violence over it. But some kinds of actions make this work much easier for them than do others (like burning a Koran), and further, some kinds of actions are much more likely to fall on their radar in the first place (like burning a Koran). I'm sure youtube is full of expressions of disapproval of Islam.

Have a Christian publisher publish an edition of the Koran that is bound in leather made from the hide of a pig, with ink that is infinitesimally part pig blood, with a book mark made from braided dog hair, using a font that looks distinctly similar to Hebrew script. That'd bring the crazies out of the woodwork...

Oh... silly me. How could I forget? Print it on Elephant Dung Paper...

Nothing I've said suggests that there is anything wrong with burning a Koran either accidentally or out of necessity

I wasn't commenting on what you said, but the implications of what you said. Namely, on speculating on the motives of an acts that our system of government doesn't recognize as a crime. Look, this is the problem with the way the US didn't state upfront its principles when conducting operations in the ME and went the multi-culturalist route. A basic minimal level of freedom of action by citizens should have been stated clearly. Not insisting upon freedom of religion was not a good idea. Governments that don't do this should be on their own, and they should know it. We don't have enough confidence in our own principles. Afghani government wouldn't be doing this if we cleaned up our act and put conditions on our presence.

Also Dan, I think it is a mistake to say that Jones may have "sinned" because using religious language just confuses the fact that it is a political act, as is the response. Political acts with negative outcomes does not imply sin. This isn't what sin is.

I understand Dan's concern and do see how my phrasing of the question - deliberately tentative but murky on the moral point - might have led to certain conclusions. So let me state plainly that burning the Koran with the direct intention of inciting bloodshed, even for worthy long-term strategic goals, would be morally illicit in my view. I was thinking of a kind of double-effect situation, when Koran-burning is justified for other reasons, but the probability of an unintended violent reaction is forseen. I should have been more clear about that.

Ten possible justifications for Koran-burning:

1. Taking one more blasphemous and impious book out of circulation.

2. Exercising a freedom that is imperiled: e.g., the civic right to perform a potentially meritorious act.

3. Saying to Muslims: "Islam is not welcome here."

4. Saying to Muslims: "We will not convert."

5. Saying to Muslims: "We won't be bullied and intimidated on our own soil."

6. Saying to the government and western elites: "We will not live in fear of Muslim threats."

7. Saying to the government and western elites: "You don't like this? Bring it on."

8. Provoking liberal outrage for the purpose of demonstrating liberalism's hypocrisy.

9. Provoking (domestic and non-violent) Muslim outrage for the purpose of demonstrating Islam's hypocrisy, irrationality and incompatibility with the Christian West.

10. Provoking a legal challenge to settle the question.

If Muslims react violently, as is more than likely, that is certainly regrettable but only serves to underscore the urgency of confronting the Islamic threat before it is too late.

I took Dan's point to mean that we in America can burn a Koran in relative safety. The Christians in hostile Muslim countries have to bear the brunt. Maybe I'm going out on a limb, but perhaps someone ought to somehow contact these communties and ask for their input.

There is a difference between burning books as a matter of political protest and burning books so as to eliminate the dissemination of information. Jeff, do you support both? Would you agree with the Index when it specified banning Hume's works?

9. Provoking (domestic and non-violent) Muslim outrage for the purpose of demonstrating Islam's hypocrisy, irrationality and incompatibility with the Christian West.

You mean the secular West, because the domestic nonviolent outrage that accompanied the desecration of a communion wafer was also irrational and incompatible with American tradition.

10. Provoking a legal challenge to settle the question.

There is no law that considers the notion that Koran burning might be illegal, so there is no "question" to be settled. It is legal, period.

@John H:

If Hume's works had all been burned, the only thing the world would have lost our on would be a bunch of superficial, misleading, easily parroted but difficult to dislodge arguments that were for the most part just gaseous re-statements of Sextus Empiricus. And I couldn't care less what the philosophical establishment thinks to the contrary.

There is no law that considers the notion that Koran burning might be illegal, so there is no "question" to be settled. It is legal, period.

Laws can change, now can't they?

Look, if you don't exercise certain rights you can lose them when people make assumptions. This is why nations have always felt the need once in awhile to send a warship into disputed international waters. It is to say "Look, we're just reminding you that we don't accept your view of the rules." One has a moral responsibility to do this sort of thing or one would be morally responsible for any deaths that result when an larger act, probably a war, is required to dispute what one has allowed to appear as a settled fact by apparent acquiescence.

BTW, years ago in the first church I attended the pastor was demonstrating how it was wrong for people to revere the Bible without examining the contents and revering that. In so doing he threw a Bible on the floor violently as demonstration that there was nothing inherently wrong with this. Now it might have been melodramatic and iconoclastic, but actually it did offend a few people who seemed not to get his point. I don't have a problem with revering objects that have meaning for us as many Protestants do, so I probably wouldn't have done that but I didn't object either since it was a valid demonstration of the point.

You don't use it, you lose it. The principle of appeasement is to kick the can down the road, where everything is supposed to be easier, but in fact it is almost invariably harder. As I've said, it is so much harder than it would have been if the Afghanis would have made the choice in the beginning that acting in concert with the US means accepting a few minimum of principles, without which they're on their own. We now appear the weak vacillating horse, and that isn't good in this region.

Practically speaking, Mark is absolutely right. It's like a lot of things: The fewer people in society who smoke, the more open people are to outlawing smoking. That's just an example. People think, "Well, I would never do that anyway, so it's no skin off my nose if it's illegal." And all the more so if people come to think the act is very, very wrong.

With General Petraeus falling all over himself talking about "the Holy Q'uran" and newspapers all over the country referring to "the Prophet Mohammed" without qualification, this sort of "I do not submit" move becomes more and more relevant. In fact, the very anger it has met from non-Muslims shows its importance.

For someone who rightly fears violent Islam, but has got nothing against the guy in the kebab shop, I have found wisdom in this watchword: "Don't just the Muslims you know by Islam, and don't judge Islam by the Muslims you know."

Sion Owens, a candidate in the forthcoming election for the Welsh Assembly, has been arrested and charged under the Public Order Act for burning a copy of the Koran in his garage. The South Wales police said: "We always adopt an extremely robust approach to allegations of this sort and find this sort of intolerance unacceptable in our society".

Owens is a member of the British National Party - the bogeyman of politics in the UK.

(As reported in the Daily Mail this morning).

As a footnote to the above:

The Public Order Act is a catch-all statute that gives the police a lot of discretion in contriving charges under it. A symbolic deed (such as burning a book) that 'gives offence' to somebody, can be construed as 'insulting behaviour' etc.

Maybe the British police would rush to arrest a man who burned a copy of the Bible in the privacy of his garage, but it's doubtful, I think.

The Christians in hostile Muslim countries have to bear the brunt. Maybe I'm going out on a limb, but perhaps someone ought to somehow contact these communties and ask for their input.

If America, too, ends up dhimmified, would the Christians in hostile Muslim countries be better off? Certainly not in the long run. Besides, their "input" on this point - unless they can be assured it will kept totally secret - isn't worth a hill of beans, for reasons explained in the main post.

I woke up this morning to a news report about the recent assault by government police on a gathering of Christians in Red China. One of the Christians was overheard telling a policeman, "If you detain us, we'll tell the US embassy!", to which the policeman just laughed and said "The US embassy doesn't control me." Half asleep, I could only mumble cynically to myself: "...as if the US embassy gives a damn about Christians."

The message for us is that persecuted Christians worldwide still think of the United States as their friend and protector. It seems naive and laughable to us, knowing how upside down things have become, but it's still a plausible reality. A dhimmified America removes the last obstacle to the expansion of the Mohammedan yoke worldwide.

There is a difference between burning books as a matter of political protest and burning books so as to eliminate the dissemination of information. Jeff, do you support both?

In some cases, absolutely.

Would you agree with the Index when it specified banning Hume's works?

Yes, of course. The Index was eliminated when the effort was deemed futile, so we live in a different reality today. But it served its purpose in its time. The principles behind the Index haven't changed, and they might be creatively applied today in different ways. Therefore I would definitely support laws that restricted the use and propagation of the Koran in some contexts: e.g. just as we shouldn't give copies of Mein Kampf to neo-Nazis in prison, neither should we provide the Koran to Muslims in prison.

You mean the secular West,

No, I mean the Christian West. The secular West has no will or motive to fight Islam to the end. The secular West is above all about comfort, pleasure and utility, and when Islamists prove by means of terror that Islam is more comfortable-pleasurable-useful than a long, losing battle in which everyone is a combatant, the secular West will cave. An effective confrontation of Islam will therefore be on Christian terms.

... because the domestic nonviolent outrage that accompanied the desecration of a communion wafer was also irrational and incompatible with American tradition.

No, it isn't. In the first place there would be no "American tradition" apart from the preceding millennium of established Christianity in the West, for whom the Holy Eucharist was its very life. Insofar as there exists an "American tradition" it is wholly contingent. In the second place, the desecration of a consecrated Host is an attack upon Christ and His Church - an evil deed for which outrage is an entirely rational response.

But you bring up an interesting contrast. The "outrage" against Meyers' desecration of the Eucharist - an attack upon God Himself - was miniscule in this country and confined mostly to obscure corners of the internet. Most people have probably never heard of the event. And yet the outrage at the burning of the Koran - at the destruction of vile and blasphemous words - is virtually universal and expressed vociferously by statesmen and religious leaders worldwide. So relax, Step2, your side is Goliath and is winning handsomely. And if you don't believe in miracles you have nothing to worry about.

The secular West is above all about comfort, pleasure and utility, and when Islamists prove by means of terror that Islam is more comfortable-pleasurable-useful than a long, losing battle in which everyone is a combatant, the secular West will cave.

Anything is possible but I wouldn't bet on that outcome.

In the second place, the desecration of a consecrated Host is an attack upon Christ and His Church - an evil deed for which outrage is an entirely rational response.

You've managed to miss the point entirely. Congratulations.

And yet the outrage at the burning of the Koran - at the destruction of vile and blasphemous words - is virtually universal and expressed vociferously by statesmen and religious leaders worldwide.

Which is why I've taken their side, except for the part where I haven't. Try not to lump me in with "those people" when I haven't written anything to justify their condemnations and in fact agree that Koran burning is permissible and have no interest in appeasing the rage of religious zealots of any stripe.

OK, I sobered up and deleted the Ann Barnhardt video. Great message, and plenty entertaining, but I just can't abide the she-devil-vulgarian-warrior-lady persona. These types can be useful but should be kept away from the cameras.

I like Miss Barnhardt's website much better: http://barnhardt.biz/.

The Islamists are lucky that, so far, we are only burning their Koran and not their mosques.

Step2:

You mean the secular West, because the domestic nonviolent outrage that accompanied the desecration of a communion wafer was also irrational and incompatible with American tradition.

Outrage and arguments from it are very common among the various anti-religious groups in the West. Take the debacle with the USPS stamp featuring Nobel Prize winner Mother Theresa for instance and anger directed at its issue by the Freedom From Religion Foundation (or some such). To suggest that only religious people can act irrationally (assuming they acted that way in the first place and such can be determined objectively) is an irrational biased suggestion. Then again anti-theism these days has assumed a religious aspect too.

Where books are burned, human beings are destined to be burned too. (Heinrich Heine)

I agree. (Joseph Goebbels)

Jeff approves of burning books not only - and bad enough - as a matter of political protest, but also as a proper means to "eliminate the dissemination of information". He would even welcome a ban on David Hume's writings, if there were an effective way to do so.
Do you agree with that, Lydia, Ed ...? If so, please never use words like "first amendment", "free speech", "intellectual honesty", "critical discussion", "analytic philosophy" etc. again. If not, have the guts to speak out against this outrageous catholic fascism.

Some things, ISTM need to be burned into the popular American consciousness. The first thing is that Islam is not going away and they will not stop. Islamic countries enrichd with oil wealth will continue to spread Islam by hook or by crook. Second, they have as their unconditional goal unconditional subjugation of non-muslims, no matter how long it takes them to do it. Third, that the only reason they left the west alone by and large for the past two centuries is that we had a huge economic and military advantage. They respected strength and push back. Now with an apaprent reformation of the Umma and the collapse of Colonial borders, the game is changing back to what it was with the Ottomans.

Unfortunately, 9/11 was the wake up call and the nation more or less hit the snooze button. It should have aroused the kind of burning in the soul that Pearl Harbor did, but it didn't. In the depths of my soul I fear something much worse is coming. Its a feeling I remember leaving me when I watched the Berlin Wall come down. Its there, in the background of my thinking, just as before...what if...sooner or later...what if.

That said, I suggest one of two things needs to take place with Quran burning. Either use it as a barganing chip or deterant such that we say, look, stop killing people OR ELSE we'll have a big Quran barb-b-Q, or, we have a free for all of Quran burning with special FBI and IRS extreme scrutiny of American Mosques of their finances and that in their preaching they do not violate their 501c3 status. They can't kill a million Quran burners all spread out nor find them all. besides, it might smoke some of the sleepers out. If it taped recording sermons by the IRS was good enough for Operation Rescue, its good enough for the Muslims.

Oh, and give Fr. Zakariah Botros a Nobel Prize and a federal grant for his satalie program. he does enjoy after all the largest bounty on his head from Al Queda.

Some things, ISTM need to be burned into the popular American consciousness. The first thing is that Islam is not going away and they will not stop. Islamic countries enrichd with oil wealth will continue to spread Islam by hook or by crook. Second, they have as their unconditional goal unconditional subjugation of non-muslims, no matter how long it takes them to do it. Third, that the only reason they left the west alone by and large for the past two centuries is that we had a huge economic and military advantage. They respected strength and push back. Now with an apaprent reformation of the Umma and the collapse of Colonial borders, the game is changing back to what it was with the Ottomans.

Unfortunately, 9/11 was the wake up call and the nation more or less hit the snooze button. It should have aroused the kind of burning in the soul that Pearl Harbor did, but it didn't. In the depths of my soul I fear something much worse is coming. Its a feeling I remember leaving me when I watched the Berlin Wall come down. Its there, in the background of my thinking, just as before...what if...sooner or later...what if.

That said, I suggest one of two things needs to take place with Quran burning. Either use it as a barganing chip or deterant such that we say, look, stop killing people OR ELSE we'll have a big Quran barb-b-Q, or, we have a free for all of Quran burning with special FBI and IRS extreme scrutiny of American Mosques of their finances and that in their preaching they do not violate their 501c3 status. They can't kill a million Quran burners all spread out nor find them all. besides, it might smoke some of the sleepers out. If it taped recording sermons by the IRS was good enough for Operation Rescue, its good enough for the Muslims.

Oh, and give Fr. Zakariah Botros a Nobel Prize and a federal grant for his satalie program. he does enjoy after all the largest bounty on his head from Al Queda.

If so, please never use words like "first amendment"

Well, actually, that would only be if the government were burning the books, I would think, and banning anyone from making more. Someone's doing it with books he owned personally would hardly have anything to do with the first amendment, except, in fact, insofar as present 1st amendment jurisprudence wd. protect _his_ act (like flag-burning) as a form of expressive behavior.

Actually, the book the U.S. government has most recently burned in bulk is the Bible. Because someone might otherwise distribute them in Afghanistan, to which a load of copies had been sent, and they were "contraband." So in Afghanistan, our government is assisting in banning the Bible. Conveniently, they have no first amendment there, so our govt. can help out very readily, and appears to be doing so with gusto.

To answer your question further, Grobi: No, I wouldn't try to impose a government ban on Hume's writings. For one thing, they have been so influential that it's very important that they be answered. Similarly, people are more likely to reject Islam if they know what is in the Koran than if they don't. Therefore, I approve of Koran-burning as an individual symbolic act, not in an attempt to make the Koran generally impossible to access. (Such an attempt would be pointless in the Internet age in any event.) I approve of people like Robert Spencer who carefully blog about and write about what is actually in the Koran in order to show how bad it is and counteract the white-washing that goes on, which white-washing is no doubt responsible for some conversions to Islam.

As far as "preventing the spread of information" generally, that's too vague a category. I have a vivid imagination and can dream up some sorts of "information" that I wouldn't mind stopping the spread of, even by government action--for example, tips to child molesters from others of the same ilk, instructions on making and using instruments of torture. But these are fairly far-out examples. I suppose one that comes to mind and does nowadays fall within the realm of practical politics would be various sites telling people how to construct suicide machines.

But in general, I'm pretty sure that Jeff's and my views diverge as far as actually trying to suppress, say, bad philosophy by government book-banning. While much bad philosophy is worth ignoring (and I ignore it accordingly as much as possible), some of it needs to be answered, and government suppression of philosophy or religious advocacy per se or speculation is almost always a bad idea. Individual decisions--such as decisions by libraries, parents, and schools--not to have particular philosophical or religious works available to the young people under their care are a different matter and may often be wise decisions. The American Library Association's silly notions of condemning "book-banning," which apparently mean that not only bad philosophy but also vile pornography must be affirmatively made available to children in every school library, I reject completely. "Religious advocacy" that is actually direct advocacy of violence and terrorism (e.g., jihad) falls into a different category altogether. It is not simply the spread of information and is not simply religious and may rightly be investigated and stopped.

The best think to do with Hume's writings is translate them into Arabic and Urdu.

But in general, I'm pretty sure that Jeff's and my views diverge as far as actually trying to suppress, say, bad philosophy by government book-banning.

Possibly, Lydia, but not on a practical level in USA 2011. If some politician introduced a law next week to ban the works of David Hume, I would fight the law right along with you. As I said to Grobi with apparent futility, the Index served it purpose but we obviously live in a different reality today: applying the Index Librorum Prohibitorum to contemporary American law and society makes no sense and would in fact be counterproductive. Even in a confessional Catholic state (to indulge in a bit of fantasy), if it were a modern western country, Hume's works and those of his tribe would be studied because they are historically important and intellectually challenging. My oldest children spent a good part of the day yesterday sitting in on classes at an orthodox Catholic liberal arts college where enlightenment ideas are addressed with rigor.

The Koran ought to be studied as well. But in my opinion it is necessary for the public good to severely restrict its dissemination. For example, limiting the production and sale of the Koran in the Arabic language to a fixed number of copies for scholarly use is certainly reasonable. English language copies should be kept out of public libraries, prisons, and classrooms. Etc.

I don't know what kind of liberal Grobi imagines himself to be. Is he the honest kind of classical liberal who doesn't believe the state has a legitimate interest in securing the common good by controlling the dissemination of ideas under any circumstances? Is the very notion of censorship repulsive to him? If so, this absolutism always breaks down at some point, perhaps for Grobi at the point where "catholic fascism" (i.e., the social doctrine of the Church) becomes something more than a curiosity and a nuisance.

But if he's a newer kind of "liberal", then he has no problem with the state discouraging the spread of certain illiberal ideas - let's say, "inciting racial or religious hatred", or homophobia, or sexism; apologizing for fascism, theocracy, or inequality; etc. - and therefore we already have him on our side, in a certain sense, just as Satan himself knows reality (though he hates it) and to a great extent must conform to it. End-stage liberalism is helpful in that it unveils the actual battle lines, which are not ultimately to be found in abstractions like "freedom" and "tyranny" (I do not mean "abstractions" in a pejorative sense), however useful these categories may be, but in questions of truth and error, virtue and sin, nature and anti-nature - and by coming down on the wrong side of these questions, end-stage liberalism proves its Luciferian origin.