About Desecration of Holy Books or Icons

[Boxlicker101]

When I read a report about some American soldiers flushing a Quran down a toilet, I had a lot of doubts. Apparently, it didn't actually happened, and I was not surprised to hear that. If you flush a book down a toilet, you get a plugged-up toilet, and, apart from any other negatives, that alone would be enough to prevent most people from doing it.

Abuse or torture of prisoners is illegal but desecration of a holy book is not, at least not in the United States. It would be a not-nice thing to do but it would not be illegal. I'm never going to do such a thing but I could, if I chose, take a Quran, a Christian Bible and holy books from other religions to a public place and smear them and/or an American flag with feces or other unpleasant things and it would be a completely legal and constitutionally protected expresion of opinion. If I didn't clean up after myself, I might be arrested for littering but otherwise, I would not run afoul of any law.

As a matter of fact, a few years ago, some guy filled some jars with his own urine and submerged crucifixes and other icons in them and presented them as "art". Many people, including me, considered him to be a jerk and an asshole but others called him a great and innovative artist and he was actually paid a large sum of money by the United States government for his "art". I believe this was one of the major things that ended the National Endowment for the Arts, or should have.

I don't know if such desecration would be a violation of the Geneva Convention or not, even if the Convention applied here, which I am sure it doesn't.

 

[R. Richard]

When I read a report about some American soldiers flushing a Quran down a toilet, I had a lot of doubts. Apparently, it didn't actually happened, and I was not surprised to hear that. If you flush a book down a toilet, you get a plugged-up toilet, and, apart from any other negatives, that alone would be enough to prevent most people from doing it.

The story about American soldiers flushing a Q'ran down a toilet has proven to be without substance. Perhaps what they were refering to was a Muslim who was tearing pages out of his Q'ran and trying to plug up his own Guantanamo toilet to create trouble. The latter incident was observed and documented. If you don;t remember the creis of outrage from Muslim clerics, it is probably because there were none.

A couple of years ago Palestiain Muslims took over a Christian church, including holding prisoner the religious staff inside the church. The Muslims stole holy erlics and used pages of the Christian Bible for toilet paper. The Muslims also ate the food stored inside the church while starving the Chriatian staff. If you don;t remember the apologies from Muslim clerics, it is probably because there were none.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Yep. If you want to desecrate any image, that's your right as an American, and that goes for American flag. You shouldn't be surprised when you end up in the middle of a riot, but that's still your right.

America is not the same as the American flag. The bible is not the same as its message, and neither is the the Koran. Both are written on paper made from dead trees with ink made from petroleum. It's not like they came from God's ass or something. You can burn a book, you can't burn its message.

Personally, if someone took some religious symbol of mine and desecrated, I'd take it as an insult to me, and not as an offense against God.

As far as I know, the Geneva conventin doesn't say anything about drawing mustaches on pictures of your fearless leader or about desecrating holy books. Why should it? It's a non-issue.

 

[ishtat]

There is a slight difference between a Moslem's regard for the Koran and a Christian's for the Bible. Most christian churches regard the canonical books as inspired by God wheras moslems regard the Koran as God speaking directly through his prophet.

Incidentally, devout moslems would also regard desecration of the Bible as completely unacceptable as they regard Mohammed as the last of the prophets the former for them being Abraham, Moses and Jesus.

Personally I think the existence of Guantanamo Bay in itself is a denial of any claim by members of the current administration to consider themselves christian at all. I suspect that JC and Mohamed would be pretty much in agreement with regard to the deprivation of liberty without any kind of fair trial.

 

[cantdog]

Well said, ishtat. It is not, the Qur'an, strictly, direct from God. Gabriel was sent to Muhammad, upon whom be peace, to dictate it to him. God does not, in muslim tradition, speak directly to any man. It is assumed that Muhammad mostly recited verbatim what Gabriel said; after all, most muslims can recite the whole thing themselves, or did in Qur'an school, as children. It is also pretty generally accepted that Gabriel dictated it in Arabic. This gives the book a leg up on the translated and interpreted scriptures of the older religions.

Muslims treat the book as a special object. It's not to be thrown on the ground and all that sort of thing. The Torah has some of that sort of special status, too. I believe if the scroll is allowed to fall to the ground, there is a penance, a fasting for a day, to set the thing right.

In the lore of the flag, flag idolaters are against the banner touching the ground, and they demand that it be reverently burnt rather than tossed in the trash, if it become ragged and need to be retired from use. In all these cases there are many rules enjoining elaborate respect for the object, as though it were more than a symbol; as though, in fact, it were an idol, imbued with some divine ichor all its own.

Idolatry is everywhere. Some people think that God is espousing their own personal cause. This too is idolatry, since it sets up one's personal or national cause above God, and imagines God to be following it, whereas God follows no thing; all things follow God. Thus it is that all sides of a quarrel produce arguments that God is a partisan of theirs. It is because there are idolaters in the ranks of every group of patriots.

But the idea that someone could possibly flush anything of any mass down a third-world toilet? Absurd on the face of it. If you've been there, you'll know what I mean, dude. But i doubt not that something of the kind was done, if not exactly that.

edited to add: Maybe they gave the Qur'an a swirly.

 

[Liar]

As a matter of fact, a few years ago, some guy filled some jars with his own urine and submerged crucifixes and other icons in them and presented them as "art". Many people, including me, considered him to be a jerk and an asshole but others called him a great and innovative artist and he was actually paid a large sum of money by the United States government for his "art". I believe this was one of the major things that ended the National Endowment for the Arts, or should have.

I don't know if such desecration would be a violation of the Geneva Convention or not, even if the Convention applied here, which I am sure it doesn't.

If said desecration can be seen as an attack upon a certain ethnic group, there are laws, at least here, that come into play. I can not advocate things like "Muslims are evil, let's erase them." and if I burn a Coran (C'ran? Couran? Koran?) with the same intention, that is a crime. Pretty hard to nail anybody for it though, since it's easy to claim that the intention was not to start a mob.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Who Wrote the Bible?

I'm reading a fascinating book called, "Who Wrote the Bible?" by a prof named Friedman from UC San Diego. It concerns the authorship of the Torah or Pentateuch—the first 5 books of the bible—traditionally said to have been written by Moses.

It's been conjectured for some time that there were actually 4 different authors, based on style, subject matter, whether they refer to God as Yahweh or Elohim ('Lord' or 'Lords' in Hebrew), and the fact that a bunch of stories—the creation, the flood, Abraham's sacrifice, etc.—appear in duplicate, with slight but significant differences. It looks like someone (known to scholars as 'the redactor') sat down around 700-600 BC and combined and edited these different materials into one text known today as the Bible.

The 4 authors are knows as J (who uses the name 'Yahweh' for God {'Jahweh' in German}), E (for 'Elohist', who refers to God as Elohim), P ('Priestly', concerned with priestly ritual and minutiae), and D (Deuteronomist. Deuteronomy seems to be entirely by a different author.)

It's E & J who write most of the biblical stories and histories, and their 2 versions of events appear side by side in the bible. The question is why. Why are there two versions of things?

Friedman makes a very convincing case that E and J were writing from two different areas for political purposes. At the time they were writing, Isreal was actually split into two kingdoms: Israel in the north and Judah in the south, and they were both fighting to be seen as the legitimate ruler of God's people. To that end, they both wrote versions of events that reflected local legend and made their side look good—propaganda, really, trying to win hearts and minds of the country folk. Thus they would slander each other's kings as idol-worshippers and sinners and glory in each other's defeats. J was writing from Judah (that's convenient) an E from Israel.

Israel only lasted a couple hundred years, then the Babylonians came in and conquered them and shipped the ten northern tribes back to Babylon. Judah hung on for a while longer.

The early Hebrews were not as monotheistic as they liked to pretend. Read Kings or Judges and you see so many examples of rulers back-sliding and worshipping Baal and Asherah and other Canaanite deities that you have to wonder what the hell was wrong with these people. I mean, God just strikes your predecessor dead for idolatry, and the first thing you do when you get the crown is sneak off into the hills and start worshipping idols?

Friedman (& the author of another good book I'm reading called "The Early History of God") makes the case that the Hebrews were polytheistic. In fact, archaeological evidence strongly suggests that the Hebrews were actually Canaanites who arose as a cult or new monotheistic religion around 1500-1000 BC. They simply invented the story of the exodus from Egypt as a way of giving themselves some historical identity and credibility as the Chosen People. The dietary laws and commandments were seen as a way of further solidifying their identity as a people apart.

Of course, if you believe that the Torah was actually dictated by Moses to Joshua, all this is bunk. But if you think the Bible is the result of human authorship, it's really fascinating stuff. (To me, anyhow.)

Edited to add: It's interesting to see how those who first suggested that maybe Moses wasn't the author of the Pentateuch were treated by the powers that be. (It's not hard to have doubts about his authorship. After all, he describes his own death in there, and talks about how Israel hasn't had as great a leader since he died.) They were jailed, tortured, and often burned.

Benedict Spinoza had the distinction of being kicked out of his synagogue and then persecuted by the Church for pointing out evidence that Moses couldn't have written the bible. An attempt was made on his life too, by the fundies of his day.

 

[Couture]

I don't know if such desecration would be a violation of the Geneva Convention or not, even if the Convention applied here, which I am sure it doesn't.

Geneva is probably a little more upset when you have prisoners who can't even see the evidence against them. Geneva doesn't like it when you take a bunch of POW's, load them up in tractor trailer crates, shoot them, then bury the crates. Geneva doesn't like naked pyramids of people. Or prisoners with electrical wires tied around their genitals.

The Red Cross has reported instances of Koran mishandling starting in 2002. The Washington Post has as well. FBI documents support similar allegations. Shortly thereafter, a government official tells a Newsweek reporter about several instances of Koran desecration. The Newsweek reporter prints the story. The right wing echo chamber cries "foul!" at the lies from the press. The anonymous government official reverses his/her story. The Newsweek reporter is hung out to dry. Hurray! The American people have something else to talk about at the water cooler, other than the escalation of violence in the quagmire known as Iraq.

This is how a supposedly democratic people get tricked into going to war. It's called propaganda - information management. Biological and chemical weapons labs? A reconstituted nuclear weapons program? Links to Al Queada? And we don't believe that they've generated this bit of Koran controversy? How many lies will it take?

Wake up!

 

[Boxlicker101]

If said desecration can be seen as an attack upon a certain ethnic group, there are laws, at least here, that come into play. I can not advocate things like "Muslims are evil, let's erase them." and if I burn a Coran (C'ran? Couran? Koran?) with the same intention, that is a crime. Pretty hard to nail anybody for it though, since it's easy to claim that the intention was not to start a mob.

There may be laws where you are but in the US, they would be unconstitutional because the act would be considered to be an expression of opinion.

 

[ishtat]

I'm reading a fascinating book called, "Who Wrote the Bible?" by a prof named Friedman from UC San Diego. It concerns the authorship of the Torah or Pentateuch—the first 5 books of the bible—traditionally said to have been written by Moses.

It's been conjectured for some time that there were actually 4 different authors, based on style, subject matter, whether they refer to God as Yahweh or Elohim ('Lord' or 'Lords' in Hebrew), and the fact that a bunch of stories—the creation, the flood, Abraham's sacrifice, etc.—appear in duplicate, with slight but significant differences. It looks like someone (known to scholars as 'the redactor') sat down around 700-600 BC and combined and edited these different materials into one text known today as the Bible.

The 4 authors are knows as J (who uses the name 'Yahweh' for God {'Jahweh' in German}), E (for 'Elohist', who refers to God as Elohim), P ('Priestly', concerned with priestly ritual and minutiae), and D (Deuteronomist. Deuteronomy seems to be entirely by a different author.)

It's E & J who write most of the biblical stories and histories, and their 2 versions of events appear side by side in the bible. The question is why. Why are there two versions of things?

Friedman makes a very convincing case that E and J were writing from two different areas for political purposes. At the time they were writing, Isreal was actually split into two kingdoms: Israel in the north and Judah in the south, and they were both fighting to be seen as the legitimate ruler of God's people. To that end, they both wrote versions of events that reflected local legend and made their side look good—propaganda, really, trying to win hearts and minds of the country folk. Thus they would slander each other's kings as idol-worshippers and sinners and glory in each other's defeats. J was writing from Judah (that's convenient) an E from Israel.

Israel only lasted a couple hundred years, then the Babylonians came in and conquered them and shipped the ten northern tribes back to Babylon. Judah hung on for a while longer.

The early Hebrews were not as monotheistic as they liked to pretend. Read Kings or Judges and you see so many examples of rulers back-sliding and worshipping Baal and Asherah and other Canaanite deities that you have to wonder what the hell was wrong with these people. I mean, God just strikes your predecessor dead for idolatry, and the first thing you do when you get the crown is sneak off into the hills and start worshipping idols?

Friedman (& the author of another good book I'm reading called "The Early History of God") makes the case that the Hebrews were polytheistic. In fact, archaeological evidence strongly suggests that the Hebrews were actually Canaanites who arose as a cult or new monotheistic religion around 1500-1000 BC. They simply invented the story of the exodus from Egypt as a way of giving themselves some historical identity and credibility as the Chosen People. The dietary laws and commandments were seen as a way of further solidifying their identity as a people apart.

Of course, if you believe that the Torah was actually dictated by Moses to Joshua, all this is bunk. But if you think the Bible is the result of human authorship, it's really fascinating stuff. (To me, anyhow.)

Edited to add: It's interesting to see how those who first suggested that maybe Moses wasn't the author of the Pentateuch were treated by the powers that be. (It's not hard to have doubts about his authorship. After all, he describes his own death in there, and talks about how Israel hasn't had as great a leader since he died.) They were jailed, tortured, and often burned.

Benedict Spinoza had the distinction of being kicked out of his synagogue and then persecuted by the Church for pointing out evidence that Moses couldn't have written the bible. An attempt was made on his life too, by the fundies of his day.

A good and very entertaining book on the same subject is Robin Lane Fox's "The Unauthorised version". He makes the case that when Judah fell to the Assyrians in 587 BC the Jews took with them into exile J & E(written before 722BC when Israel had been exiled) plus some ancient poetry such as the Ode of Deborah and Miriams song of victory, Deuteronomy which was presented to King Josiah in about 620 and a lot of legal precedents which were eventually put together to form Leviticus.

Lane Fox however argues pretty convincingly that the Jewish Bible was not really recognisable until the followers of Nehemiah and Ezra put it together after the return from Exile which was not until 439BC. Ezra was in fact some sort of agent of King Darius of Persia who encouraged the re-establishment of the Jewish people and faith presumably as some sort of bulwark against other powers in the region. Cyrus and Darius although Pagan Kings get a particularly good press in the Bible from the Jewish writers of the time.

My own interest in this subject is firstly the degree of influence of the older Assyrian and Persian religions such as Zoroastrianism on the development of Jewish thought and secondly the influence of the mother godess's on the people of the time. As you say Inanna/Ishtar/Astarte/Isis were far more influential than priestly writers would like to admit . I would argue too that part of the reason the cult of Mary developed in Christianity was as a rival to the Isis cult which was immensely popular in Imperial Rome.

It'is interesting to contemplate that if the Jerusalem exiles had not taken their temple writings into exile in 587 BC the bulding blocks of the Jewish Bible would simply not have existed. It is most unlikely Judaism would have survived without these books and thus Christianity and Islam would never have emerged. Another book you might enjoy is Karen Armstrong's "In the Beginning" which is an analysis of the Book of Genesis. She is a fine mind and author, a former Catholic nun who now lectures trainee Rabbis in London.

Sorry I could rant on all day on this subject!

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Geneva is probably a little more upset when you have prisoners who can't even see the evidence against them. Geneva doesn't like it when you take a bunch of POW's, load them up in tractor trailer crates, shoot them, then bury the crates. Geneva doesn't like naked pyramids of people. Or prisoners with electrical wires tied around their genitals.

The Red Cross has reported instances of Koran mishandling starting in 2002. The Washington Post has as well. FBI documents support similar allegations. Shortly thereafter, a government official tells a Newsweek reporter about several instances of Koran desecration. The Newsweek reporter prints the story. The right wing echo chamber cries "foul!" at the lies from the press. The anonymous government official reverses his/her story. The Newsweek reporter is hung out to dry. Hurray! The American people have something else to talk about at the water cooler, other than the escalation of violence in the quagmire known as Iraq.

This is how a supposedly democratic people get tricked into going to war. It's called propaganda - information management. Biological and chemical weapons labs? A reconstituted nuclear weapons program? Links to Al Queada? And we don't believe that they've generated this bit of Koran controversy? How many lies will it take?

Wake up!

It seems to me, in the wake of Dan Rather and other scandals, that the press would wake up. You can't just make it up as you go along anymore. there are a host of people who will check up behind you on anything you write that is inflamatory.

There may be some truth to the idea that the far right is manipulating the press, but it's also apparent to most folks that the press is doing untold harm to itself. A stroy this inflamatory, based on the word of one annonyamous government official should never have survived the vetteing process. As long as people within the press continue to act like this is 1950 and information isn't readily avialable to all, they will continue to end up with egg on thier faces.

Unless they start following their own rules and put stringent proceedural action on what gets published, I can easily see reporters ending up on the top of the list with lawyers and Used car salesmen for trusted professions.

 

[Liar]

There may be laws where you are but in the US, they would be unconstitutional because the act would be considered to be an expression of opinion.

So it's perfectly legal to gather a mob in the town square, holler them into a suitable level of frenzy and tell them that "Niggers are spawns of Satan, let's shoot them all!"

Hey, just expressing an opinion, right?

 

[Boxlicker101]

So it's perfectly legal to gather a mob in the town square, holler them into a suitable level of frenzy and tell them that "Niggers are spawns of Satan, let's shoot them all!"

Hey, just expressing an opinion, right?

There are limits to freedom of expression and what you describe, inciting to violence, is outside those limits. Burning a flag or desecrating what some persons hold to be holy is within the limits, although it could produce unwanted reactions.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

So it's perfectly legal to gather a mob in the town square, holler them into a suitable level of frenzy and tell them that "Niggers are spawns of Satan, let's shoot them all!"

Hey, just expressing an opinion, right?

As long as you are just shouting it is.

We live in a country where the founders feared government intervention and control. They wrote our constitution with the idea of protecting the liberty of all. What ideas, or opinions need protection if not those that are unpopular or controversial?

In your, admitedly, extreme example, as long as the only action is words, then the instigator and the crowd are well within their rights. Should their words lead to actions that are in violation of the law, then they face the organs of the legal system. In accordance with those laws, the instigator can be held accountable, even if he takes no part in the actions. Manson is an example as well as as several mob bosses who may not have ever killed anyone themselves but ordered it done.

Your country tries to make even having the ideas and expressing them criminal. Ours holds that you can have the opinions and express them, as long as you don't act on them.

Our founding fathers took a strong stand Against the power of governmental tyrrany. If you read the constitution you will see ours isn't loaded with the responsibilities of government, it's loaded with checks upon its power. Continental governments, tend to enumerate the responsibilites of government to provide and protect freeedoms. We take the freedoms for granted and our documents tend to place exacting limits upon the actions of government in curtailing those freedoms.

Neither modle is intrinsically better than the other, but we are free to speak as we will and express opinions that aren't popular. You aren't. In your opinion that lack of freedom may be a good thing. Perhaps it is. But government as thought police was anathema to our founders and by and large, it still is today.

 

[Op_Cit]

The story about American soldiers flushing a Q'ran down a toilet has proven to be without substance.

This thread is kind of funny.

First people in the muslim world get all upset because someone said someone flushed a holy book down the toilet--they believed what they heard/read. Then most here accept (seemingly blindly) the explanation that it never happened--these posters believe what they hear/read subsequently.

But where is the truth in all this?

The only application of reasoning is a half hearted attempt: can't flush a book, must not be true. (Somebody give me a book, I'll show you how it's done: you rip the pages out one by one. What's so important about its cover?)

Did it happen? I don't know. Is it likely to have happened? Based on my knowledge of human nature, absolutely. Heck, the flusher probably wiped his ass with it first. (For that matter, maybe the flusher was thinking that since we've done the same with the Bill of Rights, what's the diff?)

(How many of you still think OJ killed his wife? Wasn't he aquitted? Doesn't the opinion of the jury make it true--that he's innocent?)

Perhaps you don't want to believe that the people who hold power over you (your government) can do wrong because you don't want to fear them, or perhaps you feel in part (correctly) responsible, but your desire does not make reality either.

I don't see much of difference between the muslim rioters and the average westerner (of the coalition member states). Except maybe that the rioters are accepting more personal responsibility for their actions.

 

[Liar]

In your, admitedly, extreme example, as long as the only action is words, then the instigator and the crowd are well within their rights. Should their words lead to actions that are in violation of the law, then they face the organs of the legal system. In accordance with those laws, the instigator can be held accountable, even if he takes no part in the actions. Manson is an example as well as as several mob bosses who may not have ever killed anyone themselves but ordered it done.

Your country tries to make even having the ideas and expressing them criminal. Ours holds that you can have the opinions and express them, as long as you don't act on them.

Ok, I understand how it works then. Of course, if the instigator's speech leads to, say, acts of violence, it is clear that he has part of the resposibility for it. but where does the line go between instigation and action? Where does expression become an action in itself?

I think this is not about putting a dent in the freedom of speech or criminalizing ideas. Some speech puts a dent in constitutional rights other people have. And I don't think that you allow all that speech either. Are death threats protected under the umbrella of free speech, as long as I don't act upon them? Is slander? Is lying in court a free speech issue? There are always lines in the sand, and some draw them a little differently than others. I don't see a dichotomic difference, just a slight variation.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Ok, I understand how it works then. Of course, if the instigator's speech leads to, say, acts of violence, it is clear that he has part of the resposibility for it. but where does the line go between instigation and action? Where does expression become an action in itself?

I think this is not about putting a dent in the freedom of speech or criminalizing ideas. Some speech puts a dent in constitutional rights other people have. And I don't think that you allow all that speech either. Are death threats protected under the umbrella of free speech, as long as I don't act upon them? Is slander? Is lying in court a free speech issue? There are always lines in the sand, and some draw them a little differently than others. I don't see a dichotomic difference, just a slight variation.

Slander and perjury are illegal and have nothing to do with freedom of speech. A death threat against a specific person is not protedted freedom of speech but if I get up on a soap box and proclaim "All N.....s are scum and should be killed," that probably would be since I am just expressing an opinion. If I succeeded in fomenting a race riot, that would be another matter.

There are gray areas. If some radical group has a website or a newspaper and they proclaim "Doctors who perform abortions are murderers and should be killed", that would be stretching it but probably still protected free expression. If they print names and addresses and photos of specific doctors, that would not be.

 

[oggbashan]

Torture and Psychological Abuse

For hundreds if not thousands of years a way to break a prisoner's will to resist is to force him/her to watch or commit an act which has strong taboos.

A common practice for British prisoners being interrogated by the Gestapo was to strip the prisoner naked and parade them past a group of giggling women. A example is quoted in the book "The White Rabbit" about a British Officer Yeo-Thomas. Enforced nudity in the presence of the opposite sex is intended to demonstrate to the prisoner that they are totally at the mercy of their interrogators. It wouldn't have much impact on modern British soldiers but in the 1940s nudity taboos were much stronger - as they are in many Muslim communities - which is why the pictures from Iraq of abused prisoners had such an impact.

Being forced to trample on a crucifix or icon was considered as one way to break a Christian captured by Moors to slavery, and was essential before a conversion to Islam could be recognised as genuine. The Moors regarded such a practice as barbaric but used it because it worked.

A possible reason why the story had such an impact is because it was believable. It is the sort of thing that would have happened in the past and comparable humiliations had been inflicted on Westerners captured by radical 'Muslim' terrorists. The Taleban used such tactics on women in Afghanistan to ensure that the women obeyed their inflexible laws.

Man's inhumanity to man has no bounds. Forcing a prisoner to watch as all he holds dear is defiled is a minor example - but sometimes effective.

Og

 

[ishtat]

Slander and perjury are illegal and have nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Perjury is a crime but slander (and Libel) are not .They are civil wrongs. Slander or rather alleged slander is frequently defended by freedom of speech arguments.