Gainesville Qu'ran Burning Controversy

[Gavin]

[font="Tahoma"][size="2"][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Florida_Qur%27an-burning_controversy]Wiki Link-y[/url]

Kind of surprised there's not a thread on this already given the amount of international coverage the possibly still planned event has generated over the last while and I'm curious about other people's reactions to this.

I mean I'm really, genuinely, amazed that you can actually do something like that over in the US (or is it just Florida ?) and that Pastor Jones seems to think this will have any effect other than to incite more moderates towards extremism by showing an immense level of disrespect towards them. I honestly don't see how a stunt (and that's all I can really describe it as) such as this is supposed to lead to anything but negativity, especially if it inspires others to attempt the same thing in order to achieve their own aims.[/size][/font]

[eleanor]

OK, seriously, this mostly just makes me hate the media right now. A small group of dumb***** (really, 50 PEOPLE?) in Florida are burning the Qu'ran and somehow this has become a giant national issue. Not to say this hasn't happened before but I'm just getting really tired of it.

And constitutionally they have every right to do such a thing, IMO. I think they're ******* idiots but I don't think what they are doing is illegal. Edited September 10, 2010 by AvalonAngel

[Korey]

[quote name='eleanor' date='10 September 2010 - 04:38 PM' timestamp='1284129538' post='700382']
OK, seriously, this mostly just makes me hate the media right now. A small group of dumb***** (really, 50 PEOPLE?) in Florida are burning the Qu'ran and somehow this has become a giant national issue. Not to say this hasn't happened before but I'm just getting really tired of it.

And constitutionally they have every right to do such a thing, IMO. I think they're ******* idiots but I don't think what they are doing is illegal.
[/quote]

[font="Garamond"]I agree with this. I don't how see how this is any more constitutional than ...say burning a Harry Potter book because supposedly it teaches kids witchcraft. However, both acts are in bad taste and show a lack of tolerance in society towards a perceived threat. What throws me is that the people associate radical Islamic teachings as 100% of what the Qu'ran teaches. When in fact, the Qu'Ran teaches a lot of the same lessons that the NIV Christian Bible teaches. But there are some sects of Christianity that still think that Yaweh is the only God in the sky and those who think otherwise are lesser lifeforms or even potential threats to homeland security. It's so called "religious acts" that people use as the basis for "Freedom of Speech" cards. While the action of burning another religion's book is not particularly threatening or even a danger to the Islamic community, I wonder if it can be classified as hate speech because the act itself doesn't have any sort of merit to it besides ignorance and lack of tolerance.[/font]

[PiroMunkie]

[color="#006400"][font="Arial"]I'm going to make a bonfire of all religious texts to symbolize that America is supposed to be the great 'melting pot.'

Surely this will work.[/font][/color]

[Sangome]

[color="#9932CC"][font="Microsoft Sans Serif"]Last I heard, it was suspended. It's...better than the other alternative, right?

Well, anyway. I hate what he's doing, as a Christian and as a member of the US that greatly supports tolerance of other religions and beliefs. I'm glad it's suspended at the very least; hopefully he'll just forget about it as time moves on or something.

But yeah, I second eleanor. No matter what his motives, this guy blatantly wanted attention, and by gum the media was more than willing to give it to him. Am I surprised? Of course not. Am I still greatly annoyed at, well, everything? You bet. I wish the media would stop blowing stuff up like this just because they're bored on a slow news day, but I suppose that's a little too much to ask at this rate.[/font][/color] Edited September 10, 2010 by Sangome

[Selene Shri]

[font="Century Gothic"]I think the media are blowing it way out of proportion since it's a handful of people who are, in my opinion, idiots. It feels like they're reporting it to create a stir instead of reporting a serious issue. I mean since when did a tiny group of people being stupid actually represent what people in the US really think? Those people in Florida are trolls and the media went and fed them.
[/font]

[The Tentacle]

I recall when this guy was on the Lex & Terry radio program (which aires out of Gainesville) being interviewed.  He came off as a total moron on the air, not the religious scholar L & T had been expecting him to be.  They had him pegged and I agree with them 100%.  This guy is just after publicity plain and simple.

As a Christian I don't feel particularly sympathetic towards the Muslim community but I hardly support this baseless act of disrespect.  It doesn't do anything to glorify God in the least.  Worst still is the backlash it would have caused other American citizens, not only in this country but also our troops serving in the Middle East right now.  

The last word I heard on this issue was that a military officer serving in the Middle East had issued a statement to the church urging them to call off the event.  He claimed it would only incite the radical Islamist to further violence against American soldiers.  

 

[CaNz]

if the guy is after publicity he must really believe any publicity is good, because half the world (at least) thinks he is an idot.
even the people who would generally agree with him know that there are much better ways to show your anger.

the US should be a country that prides itself on our tollerance and freedom of religion. This mans stupid publicity grab gives the rest of us a bad name. All he is doing is becoming what he hates, a religious extremist.

[The Spectacular Professor]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]Christians who attack all of Islam on the baseless assumption that everyone who practices it is a radical are hardly any different from the Islams who crash planes into buildings believing that anyone who believes differently from them is a heathen who must be destroyed. It's the same mindset and the same motives, the only difference is the cost in human lives, and who's to say Westboro Baptist is above bombing a convention center?

I know sometimes it's hard to practice what you preach, but this one seems pretty damned coherent.[/font]

[Delta]

[COLOR=#35425e]Oh, so there are only 50 of them? The news agencies seems to have forgotten to mention that teensy weensy fact. Because the way the news reaches us here across the Pacific, it sounds like a good percentage of Americans stand behind Terry Jones. Apparently, that is not the case, but the damage has been done: from this incident, we feel that US education system sorely needs an overhaul, to put it mildly. Sorry.

eleanor, I totally understand where you're coming from. The media has been known to blow things out of proportion, and create rifts between interest groups. These then lead to more hating, and consequently more news fodder like this. It's a really vicious cycle. Like that Lambchops song.[/COLOR]

[The Spectacular Professor]

[quote name='Delta' date='10 September 2010 - 08:20 PM' timestamp='1284175240' post='700396'][COLOR=#35425e]Like that Lambchops song.[/COLOR]
[/quote]
[font="Comic Sans MS"]It doesn't end.
It just goes on and on my friend.
SOMEBODY
STAAARTED SINGIN' IT NOT KNOWIN' WHAT IT WAS
AND THEY WILL KEEP ON SINGIN' IT FOREVER JUST BECAUSE
THIS IS THE SONG THAT DOESN'T END
IT JUST GOES ON AND ON MY FRIEND....[/font] Edited September 11, 2010 by The Professor

[Pleiades Rising]

If I'm correct, I believe the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas said that they too would burn copies of the Quran. (It should be noted that they're not even officially affiliated with the Baptist Church, and it consists of a very small congregation.) The Westbro Baptist Church is the same organization that protested at Mr. Rogers' funeral, by the way.

The thing about deliberately provocative protests like these is that if there is any semblance of a substantial issue behind the protest, the issue gets lost (remember, provocations are meant to [i]provoke something[/i]). In trying to raise the issue that building a mosque near Ground Zero in NYC might itself be a provocative act, Terry Jones thought that burning holy books on such a solemn day would somehow be the proper way to shed light on the before mentioned issue. It got some discussion going, but not the one he had initially hoped to start. Nevertheless, as far as getting attention, the non-event succeeded in that respect.

Also, I don't really agree that this was an issue that shouldn't have even been covered by the media. By bringing it to light and thus exposing it to the general public (worldwide, at that), it undoubtedly put pressure on Terry Jones to reconsider his potential actions, to be responsible for them should he carry them to fruition (suspended, at last glance). With issues like these, sweeping them under the media rug, in all cases, isn't always the right thing to do. As an example, if some person plans on burning a copy of [i]Harry Potter,[/i] that's somewhat different, to say the least, than burning a text considered holy by millions of people. The end results of each action would be different, I think. Holy texts are, after all, metaphysical and ethical systems in which people believe and live (and have for thousands of years). Considering the context (9-11 and the building of the mosque) and situation (the U.S. having troops overseas) in which this issue has taken place, this issue should not be easily and dismissively pushed aside as if it were on par with the burning of [i]Harry Potter[/i] books. By examining it on a wider scale, it makes us question what's covered by the phrase "freedom of speech" (which also leads to examining "freedom of expression", both of which need to be explored in the context of The Constitution of the United States of America, as this [i]specific[/i] issue - viz. the item linked above - originated from the U.S.); it immediately puts pressure on any agent involved in such questionable acts; and it may even open a much needed dialogue as opposed to the outright provocative act. Undoubtedly, the potential outcome is not as neat as I presented it (I don't think it is that tidy, actually; the details are much more complex) and it doesn't always end up with fruitful dialogue between responsible individuals/parties when the media shines its spotlight on something. But what could have been a small festering sore could easily grow into a larger and potentially untreatable growth if left unchecked. In this case, I don't think the media is at fault for covering the story.

[James]

[font="Palatino Linotype"]I think that the burning of any book is an offense of a kind, whether that book is Harry Potter or the Qu'ran. I don't think that religious texts should be afforded more respect than any other text, simply because they are religious, but I [i]do[/i] think that book burning should be safely associated with barbaric idiocy.

It's difficult to say whether or not the media should have covered this story. I think that once notable people became involved (General Petraeus, for example - am I spelling his name correctly?), then that does tend to make it newsworthy. And, at that point, I think it's absolutely worthy of media coverage.

It's interesting that the story has become so enormous in terms of public perception though. As many have said, this basically involves one guy from some little backwater church who is trying to make an absolutely inane and stupid statement.

I do think that people should have the right to do this type of thing (i.e. something that is symbolic but doesn't physically hurt another person), but it's the kind of blunt, inarticulate statement that I would expect from the group involved. [/font]

[Heaven's Cloud]

[quote name='James' date='11 September 2010 - 07:41 AM' timestamp='1284205280' post='700408']
[font="Palatino Linotype"]I think that the burning of any book is an offense of a kind, whether that book is Harry Potter or the Qu'ran. I don't think that religious texts should be afforded more respect than any other text, simply because they are religious, but I [i]do[/i] think that book burning should be safely associated with barbaric idiocy.
[/font]
[/quote]

[color=indigo]I would argue that if you were forced to choose between burning a Harry Potter novel or a religious text (specifically the Qu'ran or the Bible) your better off burning a religious text. Might as well save the work of fiction that hasn't directly contributed to the death of so many people. That, and Harry Potter is the least ridiculous and fantastical of all three books.

I think it is strange that people don't find the burning of Qu'rans to be a very christian practice. The Qu'ran is not recognized as a holy book by any Christian organization that I am familiar with, and therefore it should be considered an idol. I mean according to the Bible the Qu'ran would have to be considered a "thing of naught" (Leviticus) and something that lends to "wind and confusion" (Isaiah), both of which are biblical definitions of idols.

Now we all know that the bible finds idolatry bad, but it also states that you ave to turn the other cheek, therefore you can't attack idol worshipers. So what is the next best thing to pyres of people? Pyres of idols.

Anyway, the whole thing was really just a desperate grab at attention by a bunch of yokels. This wouldn't have become a national incident if the people involved didn't want it to. Lets face it, far more has been made of this then when Muslims is Gaza broke into a Latin Church in Gaza, ransacked it, and the burned all of the crosses and bibles. And they killed people while doing it![/color]

[Pleiades Rising]

If I may request more information on the cla[font="Verdana"]im that "[/font]the burning of any book is an offense of a kind, whether that book is Harry Potter or the Qu'ran. I don't think that religious texts should be afforded more respect than any other text, simply because they are religious...[font="Verdana"]"[/font], [font="Verdana"]since I don't want to get things wrong and attribute to anyone claims they do not hold. I want clarification on what, or if, anything is entailed by the notion of denying religious texts a "special" sort of respect that one would not give to a [i]Harry Potter[/i] (even an [i]Archie[/i] comic) book, for example. The claim, as it stands, suggests that all texts should be treated equally, correct? As I noted earlier, I deny that the act of burning a religious text has the same meanings, connotation, and motivations as burning a [i]Harry Potter[/i] book. However, I can't fully motivate this claim unless the quoted item is clarified further.

Furthermore, I also request more information on the claim that [/font]"if you were forced to choose between burning a Harry Potter novel or a religious text (specifically the Qu'ran or the Bible) your better off burning a religious text. Might as well save the work of fiction that hasn't directly contributed to the death of so many people." This seems to directly implicate religion in many "crimes against humanity", as it were. Again, if what I wrote isn't equivalent to the quoted passage, and does not express what it intends to express, please correct me if I'm wrong. In this instance, I think that as the quoted claim has been formulated, it leaves room for oversimplifications on such broad and diverse subjects such as wars, politics, and ethnic conflicts, to name a few. Is it meant to say that religions cause - [i]what[/i]? (whatever "cause" means in such a context).

These two claims bother me: Is it possible for one to hold both claims at once? I don't assume that either of you do hold both of them, since both of you, James and Heaven's Cloud, obviously put forth different statements. In any event, I do not risk answering my own question based on the status of the quoted claims put forward, since it might misrepresent all sides involved, and that surely is bad for reasonable dialogue. Edited September 12, 2010 by Pleiades Rising

[James]

[font=palatino linotype]I thought my statement was pretty clear - I think you have interpreted it correctly. I am opposed to the burning of [i]any[/i] book, whether it is the Qu'ran or whether it is Harry Potter.

I have absolutely no doubt that there are many people who would be more offended by the burning of the Qu'ran versus the burning of Harry Potter, but I am certainly not one of them. Bear in mind that many of those same people were calling for Salman Rushdie's head when he wrote [i]The Satanic Verses[/i] and bear in mind that many of those people were threatening violence against a small Danish newspaper when it published pretty benign (and, actually, not terribly witty) cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

I say this because my opposition to what's happening in this case is the fact that books are being burned, [i]not[/i] that it is specifically the Qu'ran that is being burned. If our only objection to this is that the [i]type[/i] of book is the issue, then I think we are kind of missing the broader point.

Without answering for HC, I do just want to point out that I think he was clearly making a general comment. I don't think it is necessary to actually delve into specific instances - we all recognise that conflicts around the world are complicated and involve many different factors (religion often being the prominent, but not the sole cause). I read HC's comments as solely being a comparison between Harry Potter and the Qu'ran. I don't think Harry Potter has caused many wars of conquest, for example. I don't think HC's comments invite deeper analysis, in part because that could itself end up an entirely separate topic.[/font]

[The Spectacular Professor]

[font="Comic Sans MS"]I can't really agree with the idea that burning the Quran is no more wrong than burning a Harry Potter book. I agree with the basic logic behind this idea; that it's essentially a giant wad of paper and cardboard and the contents aren't all that relevant so much as the intent behind the act. This is why I disagree, though. It's the intent itself that holds more weight in this instance.

Burning any average work of fiction is just protesting the content of the story. It tells the world that you disagree with the themes presented in the book and don't consider it worth reading. Essentially, you are telling the book that it doesn't have a right to be there.

Now take a religious text and apply the same motivation, but now you're not only protesting a novel. You're more or less telling everyone who believes in what is written in that book (and this being the Quran, that's a pretty substantial community) that they are stupid and wrong. Burning [i]Twilight[/i] is intolerance of a story. Burning the Quran is intolerance of the entire Islamic nation. You may argue that people who are fans of a burned novel may take offense, but for the most part that book doesn't represent the way in which they have chosen to live out their entire life. As such, the intent behind burning a religious text is far more malicious than burning a work of fiction. Burning a work of fiction attacks someone's interests. Burning a religious text attacks their beliefs.[/font] Edited September 12, 2010 by The Professor

[Delta]

[COLOR=#35425e][quote name='The Professor' date='12 September 2010 - 02:38 PM' timestamp='1284273490' post='700429']
[font="Comic Sans MS"]Burning a work of fiction attacks someone's interests. Burning a religious text attacks their beliefs.[/font]
[/quote]THIS.

James, not everyone is level-headed as a utopia would like them to be. And even if they agree that burning religious text is no more shocking than burning a book about a wizard boy, there will be a nagging voice inside their heads telling them that the former is more grave. I imagine it would be like burning [i]The Origin of Species[/i]; the perps are actually saying "b***s***, Darwin".[/color]

[James]

[quote name='Delta' date='12 September 2010 - 08:35 PM' timestamp='1284284101' post='700439']
[COLOR=#35425e]

James, not everyone is level-headed as a utopia would like them to be. And even if they agree that burning religious text is no more shocking than burning a book about a wizard boy, there will be a nagging voice inside their heads telling them that the former is more grave. I imagine it would be like burning [i]The Origin of Species[/i]; the perps are actually saying "b***s***, Darwin".[/color]
[/quote]

[font=palatino linotype]See the quote from me below:[/font]

[quote name='James']I have absolutely no doubt that there are many people who would be more offended by the burning of the Qu'ran versus the burning of Harry Potter, but I am certainly not one of them. Bear in mind that many of those same people were calling for Salman Rushdie's head when he wrote The Satanic Verses and bear in mind that many of those people were threatening violence against a small Danish newspaper when it published pretty benign (and, actually, not terribly witty) cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. [/quote]

[font=palatino linotype]As per the above quote, I fully understand - and have pointed out - that there are many people in the world who will have a strong reaction to burning the Qu'ran. And it is also true that someone who burns the Qu'ran likely [i]knows[/i] this and is deliberately trying to fuel a conflict of some kind.

I am simply pointing out that, in [i]my[/i] view, the broader issue [i]I[/i] have with this is the burning of [i]any[/i] book in general. I personally think that religion often gets a free pass simply because it is religion - it becomes immune to criticisms, both reasonable and unreasonable. So, for me, the issue is not that we're talking about the burning of a religious book - I am just as opposed to those schools in America that burned Harry Potter for equally stupid reasons.

So, yes, you're absolutely right that not everyone will have the same reaction and that we don't live in utopia - as I myself have already pointed out.

But I am not only criticing the act of burning the Qu'ran (as if it even needs my criticism - it's self-evidently ridiculous), I am also criticising the idea that any one group's "beliefs" should somehow be beyond the realm of free speech. That idea sets a very dangerous precedent and it should not be regarded as self-evidently correct, either.[/font]

[eleanor]

[quote name='Lady Shy' date='12 September 2010 - 06:10 PM' timestamp='1284329427' post='700448']
Burning a book has nothing to do with any form of free speech. It is completely ridiculous to even consider that. It would more likely be considered under anything along the lines of "I bought it, so I own it, so I can do whatever I want with it." Which still makes the burning of books lame, but at least it makes sense in a rather basic way.
[/quote]

Actually, the Supreme Court has ruled three times in favor of protecting the right to burning the American flag, which I would view as a similar offense-- the burning of venerated objects. The burning of venerated objects is a "symbolic" form of free speech. It's still controversial, no doubt, but for now it's a protected form of free speech.

I can see why you'd personally think that, but if you're arguing this from a constitutional standpoint, than that statement really has no legs to stand on.

IMO, even personally, I believe burning books, and other venerated objects, should be protected by the First Amendment. The point of the First Amendment is that it protects even forms of expression that most people would be disgusted by. Edited September 12, 2010 by eleanor

[James]

[quote name='eleanor' date='13 September 2010 - 09:56 AM' timestamp='1284332191' post='700449']

IMO, even personally, I believe burning books, and other venerated objects, should be protected by the First Amendment. The point of the First Amendment is that it protects even forms of expression that most people would be disgusted by.
[/quote]

[font=palatino linotype]Right. I agree with this. I could never personally imagine burning a book or a flag - and often when these things are done, it does annoy or anger me. But I think when you start setting limits on free speech in this area, you do set a dangerous precedent.

One of the words that I'm really tired of hearing is "offended". Of course anything could potentially offend any person, especially if you're actually attacking their sincere beliefs (I use religion as the example in this case, but you could replace that with anything you like - political beliefs, beliefs on how to raise children, beliefs on lifestyle, etc...)

The issue I have with people being offended, though, is that quite often people declare their offense as a precursor to shutting down argument or free speech. You guys might be familiar with a proposal now before the United Nations that would essentially enshrine blasphemy as a crime (an "international" crime, as far as I remember). That concept should horrify every lover of free speech and democracy - whether you are religious or not.

Also, the guy who chooses to burn the Qu'ran may be exercising his right to free speech. But the rest of us can also exercise our right to form an opinion about his action. In other words, he must be responsible for his own words and actions. Sure, he might do something horrible like burning a book - but what will the consequences be? If nothing else, he is now internationally known as one of the most backward attention-seekers in America. The damage this has done to his reputation is profound, I'd say. [/font]

[Heaven's Cloud]

[quote name='James' date='12 September 2010 - 09:44 AM' timestamp='1284299074' post='700441']
[font=palatino linotype]See the quote from me below:[/font]
I am simply pointing out that, in [i]my[/i] view, the broader issue [i]I[/i] have with this is the burning of [i]any[/i] book in general. I personally think that religion often gets a free pass simply because it is religion - it becomes immune to criticisms, both reasonable and unreasonable. So, for me, the issue is not that we're talking about the burning of a religious book - I am just as opposed to those schools in America that burned Harry Potter for equally stupid reasons.
[/font]
[/quote]

[color=indigo]Pleiades asked requested some clarification earlier, so I thought I'd kill tow bird with one by clarifying my post with by responding to James'. While I too don't support book burning, I almost think that this is the reason while burning a bible or Qu'ran would have more meaning and is less offensive than burning a normal work of fiction.

Burning a holy book can be a form of non-violent protest to towards the actions carried out by people that value that book. There are a lot of legitimate reasons to protest the actions of religious groups. There isn't a single logical reason to protest Harry Potter.

On another note, I think it was some tiny churches in the US burning Harry Potter, not schools. Regardless, that was asinine. [/color]

[James]

[quote name='Heaven's Cloud' date='13 September 2010 - 01:22 PM' timestamp='1284344546' post='700461']
[color=indigo]

On another note, I think it was some tiny churches in the US burning Harry Potter, not schools. Regardless, that was asinine. [/color]
[/quote]

[font=palatino linotype]Ah yes, you're right about that. In some ways I think it was a similar story, in that they were quite small groups but they gained this enormous international attention. Thanks for the clarification. [/font]

[The Spectacular Professor]

[quote name='Heaven's Cloud' date='12 September 2010 - 07:22 PM' timestamp='1284344546' post='700461']
[color=indigo]Burning a holy book can be a form of non-violent protest to towards the actions carried out by people that value that book. There are a lot of legitimate reasons to protest the actions of religious groups. There isn't a single logical reason to protest Harry Potter.[/color]
[/quote]
[font="Comic Sans MS"]Except for the most part, you'll find that the religious groups committing these atrocities (keeping with the Qu'ran example here) are radical extremists who are looked down upon by their more moderate contemporaries. They're not representing Islam as a whole, they're representing an insane faction who grossly misinterprets the Qu'ran's teachings and uses it as an excuse to kill anyone they don't agree with in the name of a God who never asked them to. Burning the Qu'ran isn't a nonviolent protest against Al-Quaeda, it's religious intolerance of the entire nation of Islam. Not every Muslim crashes planes into buildings. Every Muslim does, however, believe in the Qu'ran. Burning the Qu'ran is equivalent to insulting the entire religion in retaliation to a tiny little fringe group that the rest thinks is crazy. Does that seem right to you?

Basically, I see it this way. A bunch of idiots are trying really dang hard to give their group a bad name, and another bunch of idiots is taking the bait hook, line and sinker, which reflects badly on their group in turn. It's a bad deal all around and it makes everyone within three degrees of separation of either of these groups look bad.[/font]

[Heaven's Cloud]

[quote name='The Professor' date='12 September 2010 - 11:50 PM' timestamp='1284349835' post='700466']
[font="Comic Sans MS"]Except for the most part, you'll find that the religious groups committing these atrocities (keeping with the Qu'ran example here) are radical extremists who are looked down upon by their more moderate contemporaries. They're not representing Islam as a whole, they're representing an insane faction who grossly misinterprets the Qu'ran's teachings and uses it as an excuse to kill anyone they don't agree with in the name of a God who never asked them to. Burning the Qu'ran isn't a nonviolent protest against Al-Quaeda, it's religious intolerance of the entire nation of Islam. Not every Muslim crashes planes into buildings. Every Muslim does, however, believe in the Qu'ran. Burning the Qu'ran is equivalent to insulting the entire religion in retaliation to a tiny little fringe group that the rest thinks is crazy. Does that seem right to you?

Basically, I see it this way. A bunch of idiots are trying really dang hard to give their group a bad name, and another bunch of idiots is taking the bait hook, line and sinker, which reflects badly on their group in turn. It's a bad deal all around and it makes everyone within three degrees of separation of either of these groups look bad.[/font]
[/quote]

[color=indigo]You are making it sound like atrocities are the only reason to protest by burning books (again, not supporting book burning). A group could choose to burn bibles to protest the Catholic church's practice of protecting pedophiles or protesting the fatwa that forces women to wear a niqaab.

You are stating that it shows religious intolerance, but it could also be an act that protests an intolerant action by a religious institution.

This issue is obviously not one of a group protesting, but rather one of intolerance. That doesn't mean that anyone burning a holy book is being intolerant, just like how everyone that burns an American flag isn't doing it because they hate America.
[/color]