Fire department bars book-burning

Personally, I hope they bought all the offensive materials at retail so that their money has gone to supporting said materials, as opposed to picking them up used...regardless, one has to wonder just what these sanctimonious, self-righteous show-offs are doing owning such stuff in the first place. And I'd love to see just how many folks will be raiding their dumpster after the "symbolic" burning. *snicker*

Sometimes I wondered why I moved all the way out to Iowa. Then I read things like this:



[Rev.] Breedlove said a city fire inspector suggested shredding the offending material, but Breedlove said that wouldn't seem biblical.


and I think, get me out of here! :-)

Certainly true, though I imagine the people of Georgia and South Carolina see it differently. Its not a perfect analogy by any means.

I didn't think Sherman's March to the Sea was a bad thing. It helped end slavery and the Civil War.

Burning at the stake happened centuries ago, Hitler and Hussein were much more inventive.

I'm not arguing against the fire code, that's a whole other issue.

There's two things happening here:

1. You're free to think its stupid and ignorant, I disagree. I noticed somebody mentioned Harry Potter, if thats a book they choose to burn then yeah thats stupid. But depending on who they are doing this for there are any number of books or other materials that a Christian community would want off-limits to their parishioners.

Someone asked where they might be getting the materials. When I was little the church we went to at the time had a similar event and they asked the teenagers to bring in things that they knew didn't put them in good standing with their faith. I remember hearing that some kids went a little overboard, burning whole record collections but should we really think its ignorant because a teenager might decide that maybe these rap cds about treating women like tramps are better off in the ash heep?

2. When people start saying that this is a symbol of violence or that it could cause people to cross a line into violence they are laying the groundwork for saying it shouldn't be allowed. Whether you agree that it should be or not, or even if you don't believe your doing that, thats whats happening. That's why I brought up the flag.

Um, which happend centuries ago? Nazi Germany or Hussein's Iraq?

Ok, I may have been projecting a bit there. I think book burning is stupid and ignorant; other people think it incites violence. But my main point (that no one here was advocating making it illegal) is still valid. I do not favor making the burning of either a book or a flag against the law. I may think that those who do either are idiots, but my opinion is beside the point.


It's worth noting that the folks in Iowa were not prohibited from burning their books because they were books, but because it violated local fire regulations. The authorities offered them alternative ways of disposing of their books, if that was really their primary aim; but of course, none of the alternative methods would create the public spectacle that they were hoping for.

No, what they are saying is that they are afraid it will lead to violent behavior.

I don't see where your raising the question of an anti-flag burning amendment is relevant to this topic. I could see your point if people were saying that book burning should be illegal, because being in support of making one against the law but not the other might open one up to charges of hypocrisy.

However, I don't see anyone here saying that book burning should be illegal. What they do seem to be saying is that it's stupid and ignorant...a sentiment with which I wholeheartedly agree.

Sigh. I is always disconcerting to read about book burnings. It is especially disconcerting to see people like these schismatic Protestants, who were victims of persecution themselves, acting as the moral judges of others.
Not too long ago, the Bible in languages other than Latin was not allowed, and typepresses of these books were destroyed and the printers whipped or killed. The accusations were "Deo Volente!" or "Dieu Lo Vult!" or that "they offended God!" then, and the same accusation is given today.
Poor God.
He gets blamed for all sorts of bloody-mindedness by people who want to make a scene and get some notoriety.
Remember, it takes a great mind to think of a new heresy, and only a little mind to burn the heretics (and their heretical writings). And almost every part of their "Jesus Church," at one time, was thought to be offensive to God by somebody, from the time of the crucified Jesus to today.

No doubt some crackpot would try it. Just like there are some crackpot environmentalists who like to send bombs in the mail and destroy peoples property. To condemn all for the acts of a few is bad logic.

And you're forgiven for the awful but unintential pun.

And while we're on the subject of burning things... how many of you support an amendment to the Constitution to make burning the flag a criminal act?

Yes, and no doubt someone would compare that to the dumping of bodies into mass graves in Nazi Germany or Hussein's Iraq.

If fire is symbolic I believe its oldest symbol is one of cleansing. Should we not burn old unstable houses down because its representative of Sherman's March to the Sea?

The only reason you're making this comparison is because you don't like what they are doing but comparing the burning of anything non-human to something that happened centuries ago is silly.

I'm sorry, Greg! I just realized the horrible word play in my reply to your posting! Flamebait, burning at the stake! Yikes!

It makes me a little nervous. Some may not want to stop at just burning books, etc. Some may want to start burning people as well. There does seem to be a historical precedent to it!

(No, GregS*, this isn't meant as "flamebait"!)

How about that "filtered" by the Governor and the bishop of the diocese.....

I just contacted my inner poet....

Separation of the church and state
what a concept
strange bedfellows
with the childrens well being
at stake
science taking the backseat
to superstition

where is the outrage

  as we march

  forward

  into

  the "new economy "

no

the "new feudalism"

Would it be overly contaminating to cook hotdogs and marshmallows over the flame from the book burning? Could that make it legal? Would the church concerned be able to handle such?

Mmm...smoked hotdog flavored by Harry Potter pages and other things...

No, I don't buy it.

If the Rev. Scott Breedlove wanted to send the message that the community thought this stuff was garbage, they could have had a nice ceremonial dumping of this stuff into a dumptruck, and driven out of the community. Perhaps by Breedlove himself.

Burning is a (symbolic, in this case) act of violence. And violence in the name of the (or a) church has too long a history to be simply ignored.

It doesn't say which books they'd be burning and it also includes cds, movies, and other items.

Burning something doesn't stop kids from getting it but it does send a very clear message about what your church (i.e. your community) thinks about it. And while its easy to say that everything is considered offensive to somebody, there are some things that should be considered offensive to everybody.