UN Workers 'Beheaded' In Afghan Koran Protest

[Gil Hamilton]

I find it interesting on both sides of this argument folks whom have different responses, in both directions about when US mililtary abuse stories come out. In virtually all cases, there are a certain segment of people who openly accuse the people of releasing the story as "having blood on their hands" because of the inevitable backlash that such things will trigger. Abu Ghraib was a good example of that, that there were plenty of people were pissed at 60 Minutes and the New Yorker for getting the story out there, claiming that it would incite violence against our soldiers, et cetera, et cetera and that they ought not to have published anything (despite their legal right to do so). Buried in that mindset is the implicit assumption that the people releasing the material are somehow intrinsically culpable for any violence that results in response. A whole lot of criticism of anti-war movements and release of embarrassing government information completely hinges on the notion that their legally acceptable actions are culpable for violent actions of the other side.

In that case, if you think that information partaining to US military abuses and incidents of atrocities should not be reported due to the effect of reprisals and that it makes things more dangerous for the soldiers out there, then you pretty much have to assign culpability to Pastor Douchebag under the same logic, free speech in one place can cause violence in other place and the person who did the speech is partially responsible. If you think that publishing such things is entirely alright and indeed a good thing to do, then you can't really blame Pastor Douchebag in the same way you can't blame Dan Rather if he breaks a story that causes a riot somewhere else.

I think the latter, so I can't really apportion much blame to Pastor Douchebag for the Afghani riots. What the rioters did was pretty sick making stuff and the Pastor didn't cause that. I do think he's a major league asshole however, who is deliberately trying to start shit HERE though.

[MKSheppard]

Some more information has come out about the attack.

UN Dispatch

Mark asked me to respond to today’s attack on UN staff in Mazar-i-Sharif. This post is my initial reaction.


Kabul, Afghanistan – Foreigners have been killed in Afghanistan before, and today’s attack was not the first fatal attack on UN staff. But it was different than previous fatal attacks. Very different. The killers were ordinary residents of a city deemed peaceful enough to be one of the first places transferred to the control of Afghan security forces. The men who broke into the UN compound, set fires and killed eight people weren’t Taliban, or henchmen of a brutal warlord, or members of a criminal gang. They weren’t even armed when the protests began –they took weapons from the UN guards who were their first victims.

Foreigners committed to assisting in the rebuilding of Afghanistan have long accepted the possibility that they might die at the hands of warring parties, but this degree of violence from ordinary citizens is not something most of us factored into our decision to work here.

Tonight, the governor of Balkh province (of which Mazar-i-Sharif is the capital) is telling the international media that the men who sacked the UN compound were Taliban infiltrators. That’s rubbish. Local clerics drove around the city with megaphones yesterday, calling residents to protest the actions of a small group of attention-seeking, bigoted Americans. Then, during today’s protest, someone announced that not just one, but hundreds of Korans had been burned in America. A throng of enraged men rushed the gates of the UN compound, determined to draw blood. Had the attackers been gunmen, they would likely have been killed before they could breach the compound.

I was sharing a meal with aid worker friends when I heard the news. Phones began buzzing. Security officers were demanding that my friends return to their compounds immediately. Cars had already been sent to retrieve them. Lockdown was in effect.

This is not the beginning of the end for the international community in Afghanistan. This is the end. Terry Jones and others will continue to pull anti-Islam stunts and opportunistic extremists here will use those actions to incite attacks against foreigners. Unless we, the internationals, want our guards to fire on unarmed protesters from now on, the day has come for us to leave Afghanistan.

[Tanasinn]

"Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of offending culture, religion or traditions," de Mistura said. "Those who entered our building were actually furiously angry about the issue about the Quran. There was nothing political there."

Yes, actually, it does. See, here in the United States, we do make an effort take our free speech pretty seriously. There's no clause in the First Amendment that says "...unless you make someone all butthurt." Where does limiting free speech stop when we accept that murder of uninvolved third parties is an understandable response to cultural offense?

[Zinegata]

Point of order: I thought that fuckshit Florida pastor didn't actually push through with burning the Koran?

[Tanasinn]

Not on his first threat, but I heard on CNN (take that as you will) that he later held a mock trial for said book and, allegedly, burned it at the end.

[TheHammer]

It seems like what some people are ascribing to is essentially apeasement. That we shouldn't say or do something that will piss muslims off. Otherwise they might go apeshit and kill innocent people. But as soon as you do that, the terrorists really do win. That is essentially what these extremists are - terrorists. They are using fear and intimidation tactics to get what they want. We are all free to think that the preacher is a racist asshole. However, the absolutely wrong response to this situation is to blame the preacher and say "See? We'd better never let that happen again!".

China and Russia has Nukes. Should we appease them?

We don't appease them. Instead we have nukes of our own. Which is why we're able to piss them off every now and then without fear of them launching nukes over it. Quite frankly, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

[Alyeska]

We don't appease them. Instead we have nukes of our own. Which is why we're able to piss them off every now and then without fear of them launching nukes over it. Quite frankly, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Then your blind. The point is that we live in an imperfect world were we do consider our actions in the larger picture. You implied that appeasement is bad and that freedom should damn the consequences. There are people and organizations that are capable of things that we do not like whom have contrary opinions to us. To ignore this reality and not take preparations is the height of arrogance.

Yes, we have nukes of our own. But given that neither side actually wants to die, both sides tend to be willing to appease the other to one degree or another. Peace is better than war, no?

[Master of Ossus]

Then your blind. The point is that we live in an imperfect world were we do consider our actions in the larger picture. You implied that appeasement is bad and that freedom should damn the consequences. There are people and organizations that are capable of things that we do not like whom have contrary opinions to us. To ignore this reality and not take preparations is the height of arrogance.

Yes, we have nukes of our own. But given that neither side actually wants to die, both sides tend to be willing to appease the other to one degree or another. Peace is better than war, no?

Alyeska, this is entirely beside the point of the rest of the discussion. The question isn't whether consequences can flow from appeasement or refusal to appease, but whether there is moral culpability attached to the victim of terrorism for refusal to adhere to the demands of the terrorist. In your example, it would be like China saying "We will nuke you if you [do something]." The question isn't whether they might nuke another country if that country doesn't do it. The question is, given that the other country refuses to acquiesce to the demand, is that country morally responsible for China nuking it? Admittedly, it's a bit abstract in this particular hypothetical, but that is the question that most people are discussing.

[mr friendly guy]

I addressed this precise aspect of the analogy in considerable detail: the doctor is not a conscious actor in your example. He is an accidental one because negligence by definition excludes intent. If the doctor were to intentionally kill, maim, or otherwise poorly treat the patient then the original person would no be culpable for the killing, maiming, or poor treatment involved at all: that would be on the doctor.

I don't understand the analogy you're making, here, but mere "but-for" causation is insufficient to establish moral fault. Is a parent responsible for the murder of their child 50 years down the road? After all, without the parent's decision to have a child, raise them, etc., there would have been no child for the murderer to kill.

And I addressed these arguments. I will be generous and just assume we can't communicating well because I am illustrating that just because someone isn't doing it with the intention to harm (like the doctor and the pastor), they are still obligated to be aware of reasonable forseeable consequences of their actions. I use the doctor precisely because he clearly wasn't intending to harm, while the other two bully examples, they were harming but arguably weren't expecting that magnitude of harm to lead to death.

I am just going to use a few more analogies, its just purely to see if I can work out where you are coming from, since we obviously have a communication issue on this particular aspect.

If you get bashed up without provocation, then that person who assaulted you gets all the blame? Right?
Now what happens if you find out he only attacked you because of something I told him. Like you were sleeping his girlfriend behind his back to use a teenage movie trope. Lets go further and say he would not likely to bash you if I didn't tell him this lie. Would I be partially culpable for what happened? You won't bear me any ill will? Would it change if I were just doing it for kicks or with the aim of hoping he will do harm to you?

As for you mother and child analogy - the reason I disagree with it as a comparison of what I am trying to say, is one simple reason. You will be hard press to be able to forsee a murder 50 years down the road. Arguably its much easier to forsee some Muslims going apeshit, and how this will give the Islamists more propaganda use. Because apparently the President did.

What the fuck? You have a duty to AVOID HARMING OTHERS.

No shit Sherlock. Its arguable that one can forsee his actions leading to more harm. I suppose if I knew you were going to be mugged in advance, and I did nothing because I wanted play computer games (and in exercising my freedom) instead I would have no moral culpability what so ever.

A doctor has a much more specific duty towards his patients: he must treat them in a way that is consistent with standards of medicine, and that includes making reasonable inquiries into their symptoms.

God's sakes. The doctor example is to illustrate how a direct action may not do harm, but indirectly it can. I don't know how many times I need to say this.

You mean Jayant Patel who was convicted of reckless practice of medicine. Do you even know what negligence means? Recklessness is an entirely different state of mind that involves willful or conscious disregard of a known risk. Patel's actions were not negligent at all and this doesn't even touch my point.

Sorry, did you just say wilful or conscious disregard or a known risk. Sounds like the two pastors here.

Once again, you fail to assign any significance whatsoever to the concept of an intervening actor, who consciously and deliberately elects to create the consequences you then try to pin on the original actor. I don't know how many more times I will have to say this.

Outright lie. I do assign the consequences to the third party. Thats why I blamed the intervening actor (the Islamist) more, which you can't deny knowing because you quoted me later on saying exactly that. I don't know how many more times I will have to say this, but I estimate a couple more **. Duh. You on the other hand wants to caricature my position, no doubt confusing it with some other posters in this thread.

** what do you know, I do have to say it more times because you use this same accusation again after you quoted me putting blame on the Islamist, not once but twice. Who would have thunk that?

"Consequences" which are entirely brought about by an intervening third-party who deliberately creates them.

Thats the debatable part isn't it. Its arguable whether this particular episode would have occurred if he didn't burn the Koran. I will freely admit other episodes may occur for bullshit reasons, but this particular one appears to be in response to his actions.

If I punch someone and they fall and break their arm, I am morally culpable for punching them and making them fall, and for the injuries that they sustained in the fall. I am not morally culpable for the fact that the doctor they see for treatment decides to murder them and prescribes them cyanide pills in the guise of a mild anti-inflammatory.

Hey, you don't suppose because there is no fucking way for you to predict that the doctor would do such an action, right? But I will play along. Say you were paid by the doctor to break someone's arms so he can get patients for him to kill, and you know he was doing this, then yeah, you will be partially responsible.

Or how about this one? You know this doctor will do this (somehow you know), you aren't in cahoots with him, you never met the doctor in your life. You however are aware that this particular doctor will be working and be the only doctor rostered on, at the time you break that person's arms. You still do it.

But why?

Because there are better ways to combat religious bullshit, and he was told this way is stupid, and he still chose to do it?

And, moreover, you are assigning far more blame to this individual than would be reasonable if he were burning any other group's religious documents.

I see this similar to inciting a riot. Obviously to succeed one must push the right buttons so to speak. It just so happens book burning pushes these guys buttons very hard.

Since you draw no moral division between direct and indirect consequences of actions, how do you separate but-for causation from being sufficient to provoke a moral claim?

Presumably if an indirect consequence is reasonably forseeable.

So he is morally blameworthy for... exercising his freedom of expression because people halfway around the world don't respect that right?

I love how you simplify this to "FREE SPEECH". Even in legally backwards country* there are limits to free speech, called defamation laws. However free speech unequal to freedom from consequence.

* I will be the first to admit there is problems with our legal system, heck I mocked a lot of them myself, however since you chose to play the legally advanced card, I just couldn't help myself especially with your Gitmo, military commissions and bullshit defamation laws, and the rules allowing a "News" agency to basically lie in the name of free speech. But hey, who is counting?

You can recast this in virtually any way you want. It will not change the fact that you are holding him responsible for the gross and deliberate overreaction of others.

Dude, if this was a religious discussion about God, and we say if God is omniscient and omnipotent but he still chooses not to intervene when something bad is going to happen, we would be blaming God as a fucking moron or sociopath. While the pastors aren't quite as gifted, its not difficult to predict this would happen, and he could have prevented it by not burning the books or protesting in some other way.

And the fact that there's an intervening and deliberate actor means nothing to you.

Since you quoted me in this very reply saying the Islamist (you know the intervening actor) gets most of the blame, I don't see how you can say it means nothing to me, except if you were being deliberate dishonest or just born obtuse.

You know that guy who feels guilty because he forgot to turn on the dishwasher before he left the house, called his wife and asked her to do it before she went off to work, and whose wife is then hit by a drunk driver because she was leaving the house 2 minutes later than usual? You know how everyone tells him that it wasn't his fault? That guy has your exact moral philosophy. Under your argument, he actually is morally culpable for his wife's death. The fact that this gives you absolutely no pause whatsoever does not make it a valid method of evaluating the moral culpability of a person's actions.

Except one can argue that the guy can't reasonably forsee the truck hitting his wife because she is 2 minutes late.

The fact of the matter is that freedom of expression, and protecting its free exercise, are powerful countervailing values that we should aspire to promote in society. That would tend to argue, even apart from all of the other arguments against your worldview (which I have already laid out in meticulous detail) that we should institute greater moral protections for people engaged in acts of free expression than we would to people under other circumstances who are acting in a manner that is not consistent with the exercise of freedom of expression.

Now I know you are deliberately creating a strawman. Perhaps you might point out where I said he doesn't have a right to do it, as oppose to the smarter thing of choosing not to? Or oppose to being partially responsible for the consequences. But I imagine you will use lots of mental gymnastics to get from what I say to your favourite strawman.

Explain why a system of morality that assigns blame to the pastor is better than one that does not. I have explained in rather painstaking detail why I do not believe this to be true:
1. Your system assigns blame to people who are acting in otherwise innocent manners because of the criminal actions of others, and not by virtue of their own actions. This leads to incredibly arbitrary distinctions in a very wide variety of contexts, a few of which I have detailed.

Except yours do not take into account that some indirect consequences are reasonably forseeable. You can debate what constitutes reasonably forseeable, however your system clearly does not take that into account. Remember the God example above?

2. My system provides better moral safeguards for things like freedom of expression which demonstrably improve the quality of life and discourse within a society.

Given how I see some of your country's ruling on freedom of speech, eg Fox news being allowed to lie, I will come out and say that I think your protection of freedom of speech goes too far. However that is not relevant to this discussion. Why you ask? Because I didn't fucking say he can't burn the Koran.

3. (Admittedly only detailed in this post.) Your system of morality, widely applied, can actually increase the grief and emotional suffering endured by people with survivor's guilt and related symptoms--something which should be discouraged.

If you are talking about the man's wife getting run over by a truck because she is 2 mintues late, I believe I already addressed this.

The fact that my system is vastly more closely related to the laws of every state and country with which I have sufficient acquaintance to speak for on this point further tends to argue that mine is the predominant worldview: culpability and legal responsibility do NOT go hand-in-hand with but-for causation, and the chain of culpability is typically severed by the intentional actions of a third-party (for an idea of the kinds of things that are required to assign culpability in spite of the criminal actions of a third-party, look up something like "key in the ignition cases"--it's pretty hard for normal people to get into those situations).

Thats nice. I thought we got past the appeal to popularity stage long before the Trekkies left. Although since we are on this tangent, given that most people have no trouble seeing demagogues as villains in literature, I could also say that most people do realise on some level responsibility for inciters even if they didn't metaphorically pull the trigger, but its harder to legislate for that.

At the risk of making this sound like a playground debate: Uh... yeah, it does. You are assigning moral responsibility to the pastor based on the fact that Muslims killed people. Had he burned religious texts of any other major religious group, no one would have been killed and you would not have assigned him any moral responsibility. That does equate to preferential treatment for religions that react violently when their religious texts are burned--ironically the very groups to which we should make special efforts to discourage.

How so? Does Islamist gets a magic protection from prosecution because of the Pastor's actions. Do the Islamist get protection from moral condemnation because of it.? Do you think me blaming the pastor for his contribution somehow make Islam look less bad? How does that work? Does the fact I also do something wrong make your wrongs better? Please explain this to me, because as far as I can tell you are just clutching at straws.

Okay, let me try to spell this out for you, yet again: simply stating that "actions have consequences" does NOT establish moral culpability because but-for causation of negative outcomes is not remotely adequate for establishing moral blame. You can screech, "actions have consequences" as much as you want, but that will not suffice to show that the pastor should be blameworthy: your test is massively too broad, and moral systems that sever causality chains at the point where another person criminally intervenes are demonstrably superior to yours.

Its too broad only because you don't take into account things which are reasonably forseen.

[Darth Hoth]

Personally, I think the Pastor did the exact right thing. As anyone who has actually read it can tell you, the Koran is a filthy, immoral, murderous tome that incites violence and worse against non-Muslims and should be considered in every way comparable to the writings of Hitler and Streicher. Which is to say, it should be banned in those countries like Germany who do not have American-style freedom of speech, and in America, it should be allowed, but mocked and derided as it soundly deserves, and its adherents should have their place among the one-dimensional villains of children's comics and cartoons, not in the public debate.*

But, because of our retarded society and its leftover respect for everything that smacks of "religion," since Mr. Muhammad wrote his murderous manifesto a thousand years ago in Bumfuck, Arabia, claiming to be speaking for God Allah, rather than a hundred years ago in Landsberg, Germany and taking personal responsibility for his vile ideology, it is somehow protected and cannot be exposed for what it says.

Of course, that primitives react to Jones's actions in this predictably violent way is regrettable. But the guilt is entirely their own, and it in no way poses an argument against him. That the deranged adherents of this murderous ideology will murder people around the globe when one "defiles" their sacred cow in no way can, will, or should protect it from scrutiny.



*Which is not to say that all Muslims are automatically as insane as many in Afghanistan are, of course. Many are not. But those who are sane and reasonable citizens in civilised countries are so in defiance of the Koran, in no way because of it. Note that I here make a clear difference between "Muslims" on the one hand, and "Koran adherents" on the other.

[Thanas]

Personally, I think the Pastor did the exact right thing. As anyone who has actually read it can tell you, the Koran is a filthy, immoral, murderous tome that incites violence and worse against non-Muslims and should be considered in every way comparable to the writings of Hitler and Streicher.

Once more, Darth Hoth reveals himself to be an idiot of the highest order.

[Darth Hoth]

Once more, Darth Hoth reveals himself to be an idiot of the highest order.

Once more, Thanas reveals himself to be an idiot of the highest order.

EDIT: Seriously, though - why do you disagree with the particulars you quoted?

[Thanas]

How about the fact that one resulted in the holocaust, while the other resulted in the most siginificant rediscovery of science and culture since the dark ages?

[Sarevok]

This is not the beginning of the end for the international community in Afghanistan. This is the end. Terry Jones and others will continue to pull anti-Islam stunts and opportunistic extremists here will use those actions to incite attacks against foreigners. Unless we, the internationals, want our guards to fire on unarmed protesters from now on, the day has come for us to leave Afghanistan.

This simple paragraph sums up the incident and what it means perfectly. You can't fight hatred with more hatred.

[Darth Hoth]

How about the fact that one resulted in the holocaust, while the other resulted in the most siginificant rediscovery of science and culture since the dark ages?

Resulted? Even if what you claim is true, it is entirely irrelevant to my point. I attack the Koran and what it actually says, not what various people who have notionally adhered to it have done at various points in history.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

How about the fact that one resulted in the holocaust, while the other resulted in the most siginificant rediscovery of science and culture since the dark ages?

Resulted? Even if what you claim is true, it is entirely irrelevant to my point. I attack the Koran and what it actually says, not what various people who have notionally adhered to it have done at various points in history.

You do realise that Islamic civilization made significant contributions to Mathematics and Science, while much of Europe then was filled to the brim with warring idiots?

[Darth Hoth]

You do realise that Islamic civilization made significant contributions to Mathematics and Science, while much of Europe then was filled to the brim with warring idiots?

I hear this claimed a lot. Often by the same people who insist Islam is a religion of peace and progress.

But I do not presume to claim it is right or wrong. (The claims of science and culture, that is.) Just that it is hard for me, who are not particularly well read on the topic, to make an informed judgement on it.

[SCRawl]

You do realise that Islamic civilization made significant contributions to Mathematics and Science, while much of Europe then was filled to the brim with warring idiots?

I hear this claimed a lot. Often by the same people who insist Islam is a religion of peace and progress.

But I do not presume to claim it is right or wrong. (The claims of science and culture, that is.) Just that it is hard for me, who are not particularly well read on the topic, to make an informed judgement on it.

So is the proper course of action to press on in spite of your ignorance, or to educate yourself? We call the former an "argument from ignorance fallacy" in these parts.

[Darth Hoth]

You do realise that Islamic civilization made significant contributions to Mathematics and Science, while much of Europe then was filled to the brim with warring idiots?

I hear this claimed a lot. Often by the same people who insist Islam is a religion of peace and progress.

But I do not presume to claim it is right or wrong. (The claims of science and culture, that is.) Just that it is hard for me, who are not particularly well read on the topic, to make an informed judgement on it.

So is the proper course of action to press on in spite of your ignorance, or to educate yourself? We call the former an "argument from ignorance fallacy" in these parts.

?

Sorry, what? In response to unsupported claims of superior Islamic science and culture by Thanas and later Fingolfin, I said that:

1) I do not know whether these are correct, but please provide evidence for such claims*, and

2) This is irrelevant to the question at hand, anyway, a.k.a. a red herring.

If we posit, fictionally and for the sake of the argument, that some neo-Nazi culture did, in a hundred years or so, produce the most scientifically utopian society on Earth, would it do anything to change the fact that the murderously racist ideology espoused in Mein Kampf is murderous and morally depraved? Of course not. We judge the book by what it says, not by what its results may be.


*EDIT: Checking, it appears I actually did not ask Thanas for evidence; must have edited that out before posting.

[SCRawl]

My point has flown right over your head. You state that you don't really know much about the claims that cultures based on Islam made a lot of progress in the Dark Ages, and that that lack of knowledge prevents you from making an informed judgement about these claims. I then asked (paraphrasing here) whether or not you thought that soldiering on in spite of your present handicap was the best plan. Seems pretty clear from here.

[TheHammer]

We don't appease them. Instead we have nukes of our own. Which is why we're able to piss them off every now and then without fear of them launching nukes over it. Quite frankly, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Then your blind. The point is that we live in an imperfect world were we do consider our actions in the larger picture. You implied that appeasement is bad and that freedom should damn the consequences. There are people and organizations that are capable of things that we do not like whom have contrary opinions to us. To ignore this reality and not take preparations is the height of arrogance.

Yes, we have nukes of our own. But given that neither side actually wants to die, both sides tend to be willing to appease the other to one degree or another. Peace is better than war, no?

I'm well aware that others have differing opinions on things. You and I differ on the topic at hand. But we're both free to Express those opinions. If someone threatened to kill random strangers if you kept stating your opinions would that stop you? Maybe it would. But I and many others refuse to be held hostage like that. That is the point.

Peace is better than war? I guess that depends on how much you cherish your freedoms. Sometimes you have to stand up for them, and sometimes you have to fight for them. "Peace at any cost" is the heart and soul of apeasement.

[Alyeska]

I'm well aware that others have differing opinions on things. You and I differ on the topic at hand. But we're both free to Express those opinions. If someone threatened to kill random strangers if you kept stating your opinions would that stop you? Maybe it would. But I and many others refuse to be held hostage like that. That is the point.

Peace is better than war? I guess that depends on how much you cherish your freedoms. Sometimes you have to stand up for them, and sometimes you have to fight for them. "Peace at any cost" is the heart and soul of apeasement.

Did I say peace at any cost?

[Thanas]

You do realise that Islamic civilization made significant contributions to Mathematics and Science, while much of Europe then was filled to the brim with warring idiots?

I hear this claimed a lot. Often by the same people who insist Islam is a religion of peace and progress.

But I do not presume to claim it is right or wrong. (The claims of science and culture, that is.) Just that it is hard for me, who are not particularly well read on the topic, to make an informed judgement on it.

Google "University of Baghdad", Ibn Khaldun, High Caliphate etc. Or, you might just have looked at Wikipedia. But just go "ISLAM BAD" is pretty much idiotic, especially as you have access to the internet.

[Darth Hoth]

ISLAM BAD as compared to what? It might have been a relatively good or progressive religion, as far as such things go, in the dark ages. I would not know, and do not presently have the time for a crash course on the subject matter. Either way, in the present day, it is generally a regressive social phenomenon.

I was also, I believe, quite clear in pointing out that my attack concerned the Koran and its social-political-religious message as expressed in its own words, not all who self-identify as Muslims everywhere (temporally and spatially). I believe that one can be a perfectly good person and a Muslim - as long as one does not adhere too closely to one's holy writings.

The writings themselves, however, are vile, and I dare anyone to try to pretend otherwise.

[Thanas]

ISLAM BAD as compared to what? It might have been a relatively good or progressive religion, as far as such things go, in the dark ages. I would not know, and do not presently have the time for a crash course on the subject matter. Either way, in the present day, it is generally a regressive social phenomenon.

On its own, it is neither any more or less regressive than the bible, or many other great works of literature. I am sure you do not argue for the burning of books of Jane Austen on the basis that her characters find fulfillment in marriage, do you? Or for the books of James Feminore Cooper for demonizing the Iroquis? Or for the burning of the Codex Iustinianus because it prohibits homosexuality? No, you are pretty much cherrypicking stuff out of context.

The writings themselves, however, are vile, and I dare anyone to try to pretend otherwise.

They are not, or at least not the vast majority of them.