Would you delete a copy of the Koran?

[TGS]

Originally Posted by recluse

Why would you want to destroy anything that has an emotional, psychological or spiritual significance to another person simply because you don't agree with them?

That's the real question.

I wouldn't, or wouldn't necessarily - indeed I'm not really given to destroying anything. But the issue of objects having emotional, psychological or spiritual significance is quite different from the issue of of objects having religious significance. What I don't understand is special pleading on behalf of things to do with religion.

[mrscoach]

Because things that have to do with religion DO have emotional, psychological, and spiritual signifigance. At least to the people of that religion.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by mrscoach

Because things that have to do with religion DO have emotional, psychological, and spiritual signifigance. At least to the people of that religion.

It should be "or" not "and". Using "and" as above is just special pleading for "emotional, psychological and spiritual significance" and why should "spiritual significance" be a necessary condition for special pleading?

[TGS]

Originally Posted by mrscoach

Because things that have to do with religion DO have emotional, psychological, and spiritual signifigance. At least to the people of that religion.

If the suggestion is that anything that has emotional, psychological or spiritual significance for someone should not be destroyed - in other words, anything that's important to anybody shouldn't be destroyed, then fine. But there seems to be something special about things of religious significance which, in virtue of this religiousness, especially shouldn't be destroyed. So, my picture of Kate Winslett is somehow less important than someones picture of the virgin Mary, because the latter is religious and the former isn't. That's what I don't get.

[recluse]

Not special consideration.
Just the same consideration that you would expect to be shown for what is special to you.

[mrscoach]

If you don't get it I'm not sure I can explain it. If you really feel significant emotions for Kate Winslett, then I would not throw away a picture of her in front of you. I also would not throw away anything with a representation of the Virgin Mary in front of a Catholic, but that doesn't mean I attach the same significance to those as you or a Catholic do.

And by "significant emotions" I mean that Kate Winslett has somehow changed your life for the better and is something you revere above all else. I don't mean you have a crush on her.

Religion is more than just a passing belief or fancy for most that follow any particular religion. The worshippers truly believe in their very depths in what they study. If they didn't they wouldn't be of that religion. In other words, religion is a very personal issue, and by denigrating any part of anyone's religion you are, in essence, denigrating them. (I am using the generic 'you' not the personal, so I am not implying anyone here. I could also have used 'we'.)

Your feelings for a particular person, whether a celebrity or anyone else, is also personal, but not deeply rooted in how you identify yourself. You will most likely move to liking another at some point in your life.

I think I'm rambling so I'll shut up now.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by recluse

Not special consideration.
Just the same consideration that you would expect to be shown for what is special to you.

Then we agree - that's nice.

Originally Posted by mrscoach

If you don't get it I'm not sure I can explain it. If you really feel significant emotions for Kate Winslett, then I would not throw away a picture of her in front of you. I also would not throw away anything with a representation of the Virgin Mary in front of a Catholic, but that doesn't mean I attach the same significance to those as you or a Catholic do.

And by "significant emotions" I mean that Kate Winslett has somehow changed your life for the better and is something you revere above all else. I don't mean you have a crush on her.

Religion is more than just a passing belief or fancy for most that follow any particular religion. The worshippers truly believe in their very depths in what they study. If they didn't they wouldn't be of that religion. In other words, religion is a very personal issue, and by denigrating any part of anyone's religion you are, in essence, denigrating them. (I am using the generic 'you' not the personal, so I am not implying anyone here. I could also have used 'we'.)

Your feelings for a particular person, whether a celebrity or anyone else, is also personal, but not deeply rooted in how you identify yourself. You will most likely move to liking another at some point in your life.

I think I'm rambling so I'll shut up now.

Well, so long as the deal cuts both ways I'm OK with that - but the fact that worshippers truly believe something that I don't remains a bit of a sticky issue. See, I would claim that the person of Kate Winslett has had more impact on my life than has the person of the virgin Mary. My admiration for Kate Winslett defines me more fully than anything I might think or feel about the virgin Mary. In asserting that do I not run the risk of offending those who genuinely feel that the virgin Mary has had a significant impact on their lives? I can't accept that they are right and they can't accept that I'm right - so what should we do?

[GeoffC]

Back to the original question ....

would I; no.
why; cos it wouldn't be on my reader to do so.

[mrscoach]

TGS, you do not have to agree with what someone believes to respect their right to believe it. I personally do not believe Jesus would want us to browbeat people with Christianity. I can let you know I believe you are wrong, and ask you to study with me, but I will not keep harping on it. I know this is how I would handle the situation because it is how I HAVE handled the situation.

You believe Kate has impacted you more than the Virgin Mary (I capitalize the virgin because that has become part of the name, to distinguish her, not because I worship her). That is your prerogative. Can you not agree to disagree?

I can feel sorry for you that you do not have a relationship with God, and you can feel sorry for me because I do not see the world through your eyes or am not as influenced by Kate as you. That's ok. I do not think it offends someone else if you do not believe as they do, only if you make fun of their beliefs. I can even see your point that Kate has had more of an impact on your life.

Honestly you will offend some people by whatever you do, even if it is just by existing. The best we can do is respect the right to believe differently and peacefully co-exist, whether our differences are religious, political, architectural, or anything else you can think of that you might like and someone else won't.

[AprilHare]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Back to the original question ....

would I; no.
why; cos it wouldn't be on my reader to do so.

That's the way I'm leaning at the moment too. (There is no copy of the Koran on my liseuse yet.)

[AprilHare]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

No, there isn't.

But the mentality that the act of book burning connotes to me something at least as vile as the worst that religious fundamentalism can produce. Book burners are the peasants with pitchforks and torches looking to destroy anything that they don't understand. There is nothing to respect in book burners. (But deleting a Koran isn't even remotely similar-- the original purpose of the thread, IMHO, was another sad trolling attempt by AprilHare like all the "liseuse" threads.)

Trolling? Me? Never!
That was unkind ardeegee. Just because it's challenging and has the word liseuse in it doesn't make it trolling.

[happy_terd]

I think this is one of those topics where no matter what someone is going to try and convince someone of something.

I don't believe April was trolling.

[der-Matt]

What a stupid question.

First - what do you gain from deleting a file from your Ereader except personal gratification, huh? How selfish.
Second - how on earth could anyone think of such stupid activity? It´s a book - it´s a religious artefact, a little bit respect wouldn´t go amiss.
Third - for those who may say, it´s just the ebook, this differs from the paperbook case. In this special case, someone who asks this question, after what happend or what those pathetic fools wanted to do - it is the same.

I dont know what some people in some countrys think who they are, or what is right - but for me thats medieval practices and thoughts.

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by der-Matt

What a stupid question.
First - what do you gain from deleting a file from your Ereader except personal gratification, huh?

Free space!

How selfish.
Second - how on earth could anyone think of such stupid activity? It´s a book - it´s a religious artefact, a little bit respect wouldn´t go amiss.
Third - for those who may say, it´s just the ebook, this differs from the paperbook case. In this special case, someone who asks this question, after what happend or what those pathetic fools wanted to do - it is the same.

I dont know what some people in some countrys think who they are, or what is right - but for me thats medieval practices and thoughts.

Okay, I am not trying to be rude at all, but I cannot tell if you are being serious or sarcastic.

-Pie

[TGS]

Originally Posted by der-Matt

What a stupid question.

First - what do you gain from deleting a file from your Ereader except personal gratification, huh? How selfish.
Second - how on earth could anyone think of such stupid activity? It´s a book - it´s a religious artefact, a little bit respect wouldn´t go amiss.
Third - for those who may say, it´s just the ebook, this differs from the paperbook case. In this special case, someone who asks this question, after what happend or what those pathetic fools wanted to do - it is the same.

I dont know what some people in some countrys think who they are, or what is right - but for me thats medieval practices and thoughts.

It's usually good practice to read at least some of the posts in a thread before responding. Specifically, all three of your points have been addressed and discussed.