PDA

View Full Version : Burning books in the US...'Burn Quran Day'


Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5

Don123
09-03-2010, 12:13 PM
Reading Don's posts is like reading a Chick tract.

Evil Muslim 1: HAW HAW HAW! Ahmed, our plan to infiltrate America and impose Sharia law is going forward as planned!

Evil Muslim 2: Yes, Omar! We have already gained permission to build a mosque directly on the hallowed land of Ground Zero and not in any way two blocks away in a disused Burlington Coat Factory, and have convinced many Americans that we are a peace-loving people! Soon all America will fall under the sword of Allah!

Fictional Don: Halt, terrorist scum! We American are not going to be pushed around by the threats of terrorism that is the dominate feature of Islam! I do not care how many Islamic martyrs you hang on the wall!

Evil Muslim 1: Filthy infidel! You cannot stop us! All billion or so of us worldwide are committed to the cause of violent jihad!

Fictional Don: Oh no? Let's see how you feel after I set fire to THIS KORAN!

Evil Muslim 2: By the beard of the Prophet Peace be unto Him and death to everyone else! He has set our holy book alight, and yet Allah has not struck him down!

Evil Muslim 1: How can this be? Could we have been so mistaken in our ways?

Evil Muslim 2: It must be so! Perhaps we should fall to our knees and pray to Jesus Christ for forgiveness of our sins, lest the Lord cast us into the fiery pit for all eternity!


That about how you see this book burning happening, Don?



That is a funny post, you are a good writer with a vivid imagination. I do not mind little light humor from time to time.

Don

Don123
09-03-2010, 12:29 PM
Evil Muslim 2: It must be so! Perhaps we should fall to our knees and pray to Jesus Christ for forgiveness of our sins, lest the Lord cast us into the fiery pit for all eternity!


That about how you see this book burning happening, Don?
Not to be cranky, but I think Don is atheist. (He's not exactly been complimentary toward Christians in this thread, anyway.)

Yes I am an atheist, so I do not have any holy books for you to burn that I should get upset over.

Really Not All That Bright
09-03-2010, 12:46 PM
That is a funny post, you are a good writer with a vivid imagination. I do not mind little light humor from time to time.

Don
Your pet theories about Muslims might constitute light humor if you weren't serious.

elucidator
09-03-2010, 12:59 PM
Like Garrison Keillor channeling Goebbels.

Yes I am an atheist, so I do not have any holy books for you to burn that I should get upset over.

You could burn one of those blank page books they sell! Of course, if you were struck dead, the theological implications would be daunting, to say the least.

Uzi
09-03-2010, 01:09 PM
So mad people read books and get kookie ideas about them.

Rather like mad people listen to Beatles songs and get kookie ideas from them.

You do realize the difference between a book that has the authority of a god behind it and dictates a person's actions and how they live vs. a song, right?

People do realize this, correct?

I mean, I have been arguing that books, which contain ideas, can and do influence people and how they act. Are people in this thread actually saying that they don't?

Don123
09-03-2010, 01:09 PM
I say we send the Islamic world a scud missile along with the Koran burning. Launch this to the Islamic world.

Here is a picture of the world’s first Muslim Mrs. America doing a pole dance.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/Statement-on-Muslims.htm

That is right, by the time the west gets done with Islam it will be watered down to puppy food. People will giggle at Islam and walk away, saying what joke from the dark ages.


Though I disagree that a person can be separated from their beliefs, it is an impossibility, as the text of the article says it can be done, I’m going stand by the rule of law. Every time a Muslim steps out of line, drag them into court along with the mosque, and strip them of every dime they own in a public trial.

We ripped the shit (gutted) out of the Catholic Church by 100 of millions of dollars over their child molestation, and people are leaving that stupid religion by the droves. Don’t think Muslims have not taken notice. They are next on the list if they try to do what Mohammad did and that is rape a nine year old.

Sure, you bet, let the mosque be built at ground zero, and let them mass up the assets. Let one of their crazy ass Muslims step out of line, as it will happen, and we will bring that building right down to a financial waist land in law suits, and people will spit on it as they walk by for all the crimes they did.

I Love making hypocrites out of Muslims.

Don

qpw3141
09-03-2010, 01:28 PM
So mad people read books and get kookie ideas about them.

Rather like mad people listen to Beatles songs and get kookie ideas from them.

You do realize the difference between a book that has the authority of a god behind it and dictates a person's actions and how they live vs. a song, right?

People do realize this, correct?



Remember we are talking about insane people here. ;)

People can get extreme ideas from anything they choose.

There are plenty of religious nut jobs claiming authority for their detestable actions and opinions from the bible.

bbart4
09-03-2010, 01:37 PM
That is right, by the time the west gets done with Islam it will be watered down to puppy food. People will giggle at Islam and walk away, saying what joke from the dark ages.

You're probably right.

...I’m going stand by the rule of law. Every time a Muslim steps out of line, drag them into court along with the mosque, and strip them of every dime they own in a public trial
....Let one of their crazy ass Muslims step out of line, as it will happen, and we will bring that building right down to a financial waist land in law suits, and people will spit on it as they walk by for all the crimes they did.


And what rule of law is it that would endorse collective punishment?

Don123
09-03-2010, 01:40 PM
What makes you believe them? Give me an estimate on what % of muslim pop. is capable of becoming such bombers?

As a % of muslims, it is probably greater than a % of people in other major religions. Their book condones and reveres it. Why is it surprising that someone who reads the book interprets it that way and would act upon it?

This should, in detail, answer your question.

Don

What Islam Isn't

By: Dr. Peter Hammond

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30675


When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to 'the reasonable' Muslim demands for their 'religious rights,' they also get the other components under the table. Here's how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).

Don123
09-03-2010, 02:03 PM
That is right, by the time the west gets done with Islam it will be watered down to puppy food. People will giggle at Islam and walk away, saying what joke from the dark ages.

You're probably right.

...I’m going stand by the rule of law. Every time a Muslim steps out of line, drag them into court along with the mosque, and strip them of every dime they own in a public trial
....Let one of their crazy ass Muslims step out of line, as it will happen, and we will bring that building right down to a financial waist land in law suits, and people will spit on it as they walk by for all the crimes they did.


And what rule of law is it that would endorse collective punishment?


Churches, corporation, Co-ops (to say the least) can be suited under tort law, in addition to any that make up the direct chain of damages to others or to property.


In the USA they can all be suited collectively (depending on the situation) for real and emotional damages.

Don’t think for a second that USA attorneys walk by a lovely mosque and don’t try to figure out away to get a large piece, or all, of it of it in cash. ALL legally.


Blood sucking legal sharks have good social value.


Don

qpw3141
09-03-2010, 02:04 PM
As a % of muslims, it is probably greater than a % of people in other major religions. Their book condones and reveres it. Why is it surprising that someone who reads the book interprets it that way and would act upon it?

This should, in detail, answer your question.

Don

What Islam Isn't

By: Dr. Peter Hammond

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30675


When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to 'the reasonable' Muslim demands for their 'religious rights,' they also get the other components under the table. Here's how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).

Linking to a hate page isn't going to do your credibility much good.

And it's very sneaky the way they use the CIA World Fact Book to lend their hatred an air of authority when all it's doing is supplying some percentages.

It also, as with the more extreme posters here, uses the trick of treating the Muslim population as a homogeneous whole.

It is not a fact that when the population reaches a certain level all Muslims will start making the demands listed. When the population reaches a certain level a very small and very vociferous minority of Muslims will start so demanding.

bbart4
09-03-2010, 02:09 PM
What Islam Isn't

By: Dr. Peter Hammond

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30675


When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to 'the reasonable' Muslim demands for their 'religious rights,' they also get the other components under the table. Here's how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).

Come on Don. You should come up with better links than that! You might as well create whatever "facts" you want, put them on your website and link to it as needed. Do people really read and believe baseless assertion like that?

bbart4
09-03-2010, 02:11 PM
You're probably right.



And what rule of law is it that would endorse collective punishment?


Churches, corporation, Co-ops (to say the least) can be suited under tort law, in addition to any that make up the direct chain of damages to others or to property.


In the USA they can all be suited collectively (depending on the situation) for real and emotional damages.

Don’t think for a second that USA attorneys walk by a lovely mosque and don’t try to figure out away to get a large piece, or all, of it of it in cash. ALL legally.


Blood sucking legal sharks have good social value.


Don

This of course, I have no problem with. Yeah sure, sue them all you want.

Kobal2
09-03-2010, 03:23 PM
In the USA they can all be suited collectively (depending on the situation) for real and emotional damages.

Wait, I'm confused, you hate the living guts of any and all Muslims, why would you want to buy them clothes ?

Don123
09-03-2010, 04:16 PM
Good question, how do you know the 9/11 hijackers were Muslims?


Ok the rules will be “by the preponderance of the evidence” and NOT by “beyond a reasonable doubt”

Just having a strange name with 34 letters does not make a person a Muslim, nor being born with non-white features, as you are talking on how a person believes.

You have to have more information. We could build a fire on their chest as Mohammad (630 AD) demonstrated to get to the truth but all the hijackers are all dead.

According to the conclusions of a 2004 report of the 9/11 Commission, the 11 September 2001 attacks were carried out by 19 hijackers, and planned and organized by numerous additional members of al-Qaeda.

… (these were) respected jihadists in the eyes of al-Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden

All were from Saudi Arabia, with the exception of Fayez Banihammad, who was from the United Arab Emirates.

Al-Qaeda is 100% Muslim.
Osama bin Laden is 100% Muslim
Saudi is 100% Muslim
United Arab Emirates is 100% Muslim
This fits the pattern of jihad Muslims world wide
Terrorist acts, hate, are mostly taught in the Koran
We know the USA was targeted by Muslims
the buiding was hit before by muslims

Guess what the chances are of the 19 hijackers not being Muslim? So low it is not funny.

Conclusion:

The 19 hijackers were Muslim.

Also a picture or a strange last name is not needed to come to the same conclusion, as the authority rest on the 9/11 Commission. A picture or a name would be additional information.

If the families, friends, employer, or a mosque director of the victims said directly, “He/she was a Muslim”, that would be a good case to make.

We could also go by how their house was decorated, or their favorite subject by valid reports or pictures. NONE of this is shown.

So you have no idea if the victims were Muslims or not.
When an unconnected party says the victims were Muslims, you know you are hearing a pile of propaganda with some emotional spin off in support of possible more jihads want-a-bees.


Mohammad said war is deceit and Allah is the greatest schemer, so consumers be ware. Muslims are very shifty people and not to be trusted, you have no idea what they are going to do as they pack around the Koran.


Accordingly, burning the koran in public is saying---we do not trust muslims.

Don

qpw3141
09-03-2010, 04:20 PM
Terrorist acts, hate, are mostly taught in the Koran

I don't know. There seem to be a couple of people in this thread that have twisted themselves into a knot of hatred and are intent on 'teaching' anyone who will listen to hate Muslims.

Obviously I'm not going to mention any names.

Don

Don123
09-03-2010, 04:27 PM
In the USA they can all be suited collectively (depending on the situation) for real and emotional damages.

Wait, I'm confused, you hate the living guts of any and all Muslims, why would you want to buy them clothes ?

I'm sorry about that, and thanks for the correction, I'm the king of Typo.

Sued not suits…


Don

Kobal2
09-03-2010, 04:35 PM
Terrorist acts, hate, are mostly taught in the Koran

I don't know. There seem to be a couple of people in this thread that have twisted themselves into a knot of hatred and are intent on 'teaching' anyone who will listen to hate Muslims.

Obviously I'm not going to mention any names.

Don

You laugh about it, and so do I, but in a more sober light, that's exactly it. As tomndebb said, that's how it always goes - some injustice happens, and then it goes like this :

Extremist : You have been feeling this all your life, haven't you ? The notion that something isn't quite right about the world.
Clueless Berk : Yes !
E : I cannot tell you what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.
CB : ... whot.
E : Sorry, I got sidetracked. I mean, I'll tell you what's wrong with the world. Everything comes from X (where X is Evil). Come to our gathering, listen to what we've got to say against X. Learn how X corrupts society. How people who believe in X are a tight bunch who keep to themselves and lie to outsiders. It'll change your life.
CB : I'll be there.

And so it goes. Peacefully, quietly, for years. Until CB's outlook is as warped and skewed as E's or Don's. Until everything is seen through a filter, darkly, even if the root cause has vanished a long time ago. Until the notion to wear an exploding belt seems sensible.

Ask yourself : what would it take for me to wear an exploding garter belt ? Are those people any different ? Why would they be ?

Uzi
09-03-2010, 04:43 PM
I don't know. There seem to be a couple of people in this thread that have twisted themselves into a knot of hatred and are intent on 'teaching' anyone who will listen to hate Muslims.

Well, I don't hate Muslims. I worked with them for 9 years and they were average people you'd find anywhere for the most part. I hate that they are so wrapped up in their religion that would sacrifice their families before tossing the Koran on the scrap heap of history where it belongs, along with the bible, btw. But, I don't really blame them as they are subject to their culture like everyone else is.

Kobal2
09-03-2010, 04:58 PM
Well, I don't hate Muslims. I worked with them for 9 years and they were average people you'd find anywhere for the most part. I hate that they are so wrapped up in their religion that would sacrifice their families before tossing the Koran on the scrap heap of history where it belongs, along with the bible, btw. But, I don't really blame them as they are subject to their culture like everyone else is.

See, that's what I don't quite get. You've actually been in direct contact with Muslims (unlike the numbnuts engaged in that Koran BBQ). You've worked with them for a decade. You have seen with your very eyes that they (well, the grand majority of "they") were just regular Joes, albeit with funny customs.
And yet you still somehow adhere to the notion that there's something sinister brewing beneath that veneer of normalcy.

Were your coworkers trolling you as they feigned not giving a fuck what you believed in ? Did they really angle for a quiet kill while you were there ? Were you keeping your back to the wall the whole time ?

Don123
09-03-2010, 05:40 PM
This should, in detail, answer your question.

Don

What Islam Isn't

By: Dr. Peter Hammond

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30675


When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to 'the reasonable' Muslim demands for their 'religious rights,' they also get the other components under the table. Here's how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).

Linking to a hate page isn't going to do your credibility much good.

And it's very sneaky the way they use the CIA World Fact Book to lend their hatred an air of authority when all it's doing is supplying some percentages.

It also, as with the more extreme posters here, uses the trick of treating the Muslim population as a homogeneous whole.

It is not a fact that when the population reaches a certain level all Muslims will start making the demands listed. When the population reaches a certain level a very small and very vociferous minority of Muslims will start so demanding.



Ok let us talk about hatred.

It is OK to hate:

criminals, murders, child molesters, terrorist, tax evaders, lying and criminal politicians, scammers in consumer frauds, people who break contracts; corporations that destroy our oceans, pollute our land, poison our air, and decimate our wild life; renters that do not pay the rent, speeders and drunks on the road, drive by gang shooters, big fat religious liars, ---

What did I leave out? Help me out here. You have to hate something.

Hate is a matter of degrees according to the acts that hurt others and destroy property.

Look if there was a religious sect of “blue rock painters”, I would have no problems, they do not hurt anyone, all they want to do is paint their own rocks blue unto their God. I would even sell them the rocks and the paint with blessings.

But with Islam we are talking about human life, the most valuable thing on this planet. I do not like fooling around with half ass cults that pack around a book of death and call it peace, with an absolute horrible history of terrorist acts that happens at the rate of 5-6 every day, and NO end in sight.

So you want to call me a hatter, fine, I earned it. But I’m not preaching death to all who don’t believe as I do. I’m tolerant, but not when I see needless deaths perpetrated in the name of some stupid Allah, and that goes for Christians also.

We all make value judgments for our safety and for the type of community we want to live in. We are NOT talking about if you like to wear a rag on your head or a tall hat, or how women should be dressed or some other odd ball customs that do not hurt any one. We are talking about human life and behaviors that perpetuate humanity to the highest goods, and technical advantages for the longevity of our human race.

We are tolerant and we are forgiving, as we understand man is fallible and prone to mistakes, but NOT to willful premeditated crimes. And certainly NOT to the bastard Mullahs that preach death for Allah is better than life--- just kill some innocent infidels and go to heaven.

I would like to see a Muslim sect appear as this:

We are NEW Age Muslims, we have this NEW revelation from Allah, we stripped all the criminal activity out of the Koran and rewrote the book. NEW and improved. Tell us how you like it. We are NOT the other guys that rape children, and raid towns, do NOT blame US we live in peace and want freedoms.

Not a problem, Christians do it all the time, one of these days they will get it right.

Good, I can get them off the list of things to hate. And if they write a good book why would I want to burn it? Not at all. They just want to live in peace, with works to prove it, so leave them alone under the protection of just and fair laws.

Islam will not change until it is forced to change, that you can bet on. And if burning Korans in public puts more pressure on them to change, then I’m all for it.


Don

Uzi
09-03-2010, 05:47 PM
And yet you still somehow adhere to the notion that there's something sinister brewing beneath that veneer of normalcy.

5 times a day prayer essentially means that for a large part of the day instead of being productive in their jobs they are off getting brainwashed. It showed in how much longer it would take the average Yemeni to do the same task as an expat (whether he be an Indian, Philippine, Caucasian, or what have you). Add in the extra prayers, sleep deprivation, dehydration, and gorging/fasting during Ramadan and you have a classic case of cult like programming behavior. Safety incidents actually went down during Ramadan. Not as far as productivity dropped, though.

Discussions with my co-workers (the culture is collectivist. If you are part of the group, then people trust you and will tell you things they wouldn't tell strangers):
-One telling me it would take him probably no longer than an hour for someone to convince his neighbors to start some form of jihad against other villages. That probably has as much to do with the culture itself as the religion. Add the lack of education, critical thinking skills (no one questions Muhammad and the Koran which is what most education concentrates on), and trust in other Muslims (no true believer would attempt to deceive) and it isn't hard fathom why.
-Another person saying that Spain used to be part of Islam and if even for a day if Muslims get it back they will set things right. The assumption was that it wouldn't be good for those currently living in Spain. The conversation ended because I could tell the person realized what they had said. This was a person who had traveled around the world and met some of these people they wished revenge on.
-Another saying that the US deserved what it got on 9-11. Why? Because of Israel.
-Local TV programming ranging from why Muhammad demands you beat your wife (no, I am not kidding or making this up) to religious scholars saying that the attack in New York was BECAUSE of the war in Afghanistan.
-One person, who I asked if his best friend of 30 years had ever met his wife, answered that his friend had never even seen his wife even though his friend was like a brother and he had been to his house numerous times.
-Seeing women working in the field wearing full coverings, including a niqab, while her male relatives worked next to her in t-shirts and shorts. I was easily 200 yards away on the road driving quickly by. What sort of 'desire' would I have at that range for a sweaty sun-baked woman?

Were you keeping your back to the wall the whole time ?

No, I was there to work and part of that was to train them to eventually replace me, which they did. You can't work with people for so long without building some form of relationship. I would have been given the boot long before if I hadn't had the support of my staff. But, even my best friends back home have things that annoy me. When I see all the wasted mis-directed effort, hatred, and outright ignorance and stupidity that religion has brought to the area, I can't help but be vocal about it.

Gyrate
09-03-2010, 06:32 PM
Evil Muslim 2: It must be so! Perhaps we should fall to our knees and pray to Jesus Christ for forgiveness of our sins, lest the Lord cast us into the fiery pit for all eternity!

That about how you see this book burning happening, Don?
Not to be cranky, but I think Don is atheist. (He's not exactly been complimentary toward Christians in this thread, anyway.)I am aware, hence the Fictional Don did not demand that the Evil Muslims bow down to Jesus. The real Don did however suggest it would be amusing if the children of Muslims converted to Christianity, so I just went with it.

Uzi, it sounds like your issue is with religion in general rather than Muslims specifically. You say that "5 times a day prayer essentially means that for a large part of the day instead of being productive in their jobs they are off getting brainwashed" - you could say the same thing about the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Amish.

Sure, the Mormons aren't attacking people but then they don't live in a third-world country with little infrastructure or governmental control <Utah joke deleted>. It's already been pointed out that religion is often merely the excuse rather than the reason for the nuttiness.

Magiver
09-03-2010, 06:49 PM
Come on Don. You should come up with better links than that! You might as well create whatever "facts" you want, put them on your website and link to it as needed. Do people really read and believe baseless assertion like that?

Evil-link-of-Satan aside, the site paraphrases a book by Dr Hammond who considers Islam an all encompassing religious, legal, political, economic and military system. He predicts increasing attempts to inject all the above as the percentage increases within a country. So a country like France (at 8 to 10%) would experience a more visible extension of Islam beyond the religion.

straight man
09-03-2010, 06:50 PM
Not to be cranky, but I think Don is atheist. (He's not exactly been complimentary toward Christians in this thread, anyway.)I am aware, hence the Fictional Don did not demand that the Evil Muslims bow down to Jesus. The real Don did however suggest it would be amusing if the children of Muslims converted to Christianity, so I just went with it.
Cool, fair enough. I was mostly just thinking, "Oh no, please don't paint me with that brush." :)

Gyrate
09-03-2010, 06:58 PM
I would like to see a Muslim sect appear as this:

We are NEW Age Muslims, we have this NEW revelation from Allah, we stripped all the criminal activity out of the Koran and rewrote the book. NEW and improved. Tell us how you like it. We are NOT the other guys that rape children, and raid towns, do NOT blame US we live in peace and want freedoms.

Not a problem, Christians do it all the time, one of these days they will get it right.

Good, I can get them off the list of things to hate. And if they write a good book why would I want to burn it? Not at all. They just want to live in peace, with works to prove it, so leave them alone under the protection of just and fair laws. Um. How many times do we have to point out to you that there are in fact millions of Muslims, many of whom are American citizens, who live peaceful productive lives and own businesses and raise families and join the PTA and so forth? Every time this gets mentioned, someone or other comes along and says that these people are "lying" or "not really practicing Islam" or "only behaving themselves because they're in a minority". What chance does that give them? You'll never be satisfied, because YOU want to hate them and you will blot out any reason that might cause you to reconsider. There's no incentive for them to go the extra mile to please you because you'll only keep moving the goalposts.

I'm not Muslim myself but I personally count dozens among my friends, acquaintances and co-workers and have met literally hundreds. None of them have tried to kill me (unless you count raising my cholesterol level during that time in Paris Mmmm...profiteroles) or, to the best of my knowledge, anyone else. Some of them are very liberal, some are more devout. At the moment quite a lot of them are hungry, but then it's Ramadan and the days are long here in August. They all work proper jobs, and some of them have quite advanced degrees. Some of them even drink alcohol.

None of this will convince you of anything, I realize. I did suggest that you actually talk to some of them here - there's a Ramadan thread going on right now - but you seem disinclined to do so. Perhaps you're reluctant to tell these folks to their faces what you think of them or maybe you'll just assume that whatever they say is a lie. Or maybe you just want the things you read on these hate sites to be true. Only you know the answer to that one. The choice is yours.

Islam will not change until it is forced to change, that you can bet on. And if burning Korans in public puts more pressure on them to change, then I’m all for it. All burning Korans will do is show the world that what the extremist preachers have been saying is right all along - that Americans hate Islam and want to destroy it. And then they'll get more recruits. That's what happened when we started dropping missiles on "the Islamic world" (whatever that is). The only way to remove the sting of fundamentalism is to show the other Muslims in the world that we're not the warmongers and haters that the Osama bin Ladens of the world say we are. Way to go, Don. Why do you want to help the terrorists?

(Incidentally, I'm thinking of getting some Muslims together to make a website that says "All Muslims love rainbows and fluffy kittens and unicorns and would never hurt anyone." Then I can link to it in these debates. Win!)

Uzi
09-03-2010, 07:01 PM
Uzi, it sounds like your issue is with religion in general rather than Muslims specifically. You say that "5 times a day prayer essentially means that for a large part of the day instead of being productive in their jobs they are off getting brainwashed" - you could say the same thing about the Mormons or the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Amish.

Certainly. But, I'm not so familiar with their 'holy' books. What is in it that tells them to kill unbelievers, etc? I might think they are deluded idiots who are wasting their time for believing in fairy tales, but as long as they are relatively benign, I can't argue much more than that. As I said quite a bit earlier, not all religions are equally evil.

Uzi
09-03-2010, 07:09 PM
Um. How many times do we have to point out to you that there are in fact millions of Muslims, many of whom are American citizens, who live peaceful productive lives and own businesses and raise families and join the PTA and so forth?

I for one am not disputing that the vast majority of Muslims completely ignore what the book tells them they should be doing. But to say, like you and tomndebb are, that because the majority of Muslims don't do the evil things in the book, that the book doesn't say to do them, is wrong. What people think the book says, how they act because of it, and what the book actually does say can be separate things. That some people choose to interpret it close to what it actually says is where the concern is for me. No book, or clear statement on what it should actually be saying, and they lose their justifications and become more fringe like.
As Dawkins or Sam Harris said, if it wasn't for moderates there would be no fundamentalists.

Don123
09-03-2010, 07:26 PM
I don't know. There seem to be a couple of people in this thread that have twisted themselves into a knot of hatred and are intent on 'teaching' anyone who will listen to hate Muslims.

Obviously I'm not going to mention any names.



You laugh about it, and so do I, but in a more sober light, that's exactly it. As tomndebb said, that's how it always goes - some injustice happens, and then it goes like this :

Extremist : You have been feeling this all your life, haven't you ? The notion that something isn't quite right about the world.
Clueless Berk : Yes !
E : I cannot tell you what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.
CB : ... whot.
E : Sorry, I got sidetracked. I mean, I'll tell you what's wrong with the world. Everything comes from X (where X is Evil). Come to our gathering, listen to what we've got to say against X. Learn how X corrupts society. How people who believe in X are a tight bunch who keep to themselves and lie to outsiders. It'll change your life.
CB : I'll be there.

And so it goes. Peacefully, quietly, for years. Until CB's outlook is as warped and skewed as E's or Don's. Until everything is seen through a filter, darkly, even if the root cause has vanished a long time ago. Until the notion to wear an exploding belt seems sensible.

Ask yourself : what would it take for me to wear an exploding garter belt ? Are those people any different ? Why would they be ?



Be careful what you say.

I let a lot of things slide that is said about me. Fine, this is a message board, perfection is not required. Every one that express their ideas can expect to be criticized or a few names called. Live with it.

But your statement about me becoming a suicide bomber I can not let go unchecked-----you are flat right out wrong in your value judgment about me, and you are out of line with the rules.

I’m going to let it go for the sake of the thread, and not turn this into a personal attack session that you would enjoy. So be nice and write some more that may be related to the topic. I'm not the topic, even if you want me to be.


Don

Don123
09-03-2010, 08:44 PM
Gyrate said:

Muslims, many of whom are American citizens, who live peaceful productive lives and own businesses and raise families and join the PTA and so forth?


I’m happy to hear your report about Muslims, that progress is being made, that some are part of the modern world, forward looking, family loving, and they do not hurt any one as yet. All well and good.

As Donald Trump said, never be concerned about the up shot of a deal, but strain over the down side.

I can go right down the list where the world is in a total degenerate mess and Islam has ruled and the population has stagnated or in complete failure. We place countries on the terrorist list, and the NO fly list, just in the vane hopes of keeping the Muslim terrorist OUT. Then comes along Hasan, a home grown Muslim that preached the “factual interpretation of Islam” and kills 12 people with the hopes of being killed himself.

Every one that knew him said “he was a nice guy.” Ha ha—every one did not know the full consequence of the Islamic doctrine. And had they known 12 people could be alive to day.

So you are saying “hide the Koran” SHHHHH---don’t tell any one what is says you might offend a Muslim. I disagree. The general population needs to know the Koran and the Islamic doctrine as presented in the Koran, how it is applied, what is its history, and be warned on how deadly it has been and can be. In addition how to spot it when found or preached.

You have no idea what a moderate Muslims is, you do not have a clue, and the 19 terrorist of 9/11 went to bars, eat out, were friendly, paid their bills and acted as a common Joe on the street until it came time for their deadly duty.

There is a common thread that runs threw them all, they believe in the koran, and they lie their ass off saying the Koran means peace, when it does NOT in any shape or form, but rather death to the non-believers, or subject them with a heavy slave tax, or forced conversions. In other words Muslims know so well the true nature and doctrine of Islam they must lie about it to make it sound good when in fact it is sleeping deadly dog.

I’m happy you enjoyed the article on the percentages of Muslims in a country v. the degeneracy. I would say that is plenty impressive even though it goes against your pacifist doctrine built on denial of the problem.

Walfa Sulton, a de-converted Muslim from the middle east that is highly educated, hit the nail on the head when debating some top Islamic Clerics, the problem is Islam itself. It is impossible to salvage, and is not compatible with the modern world. You cannot lie about it any longer.

So called moderate Muslims should NOT have a problem with this as they lost nothing by putting the Koran in the trash and walk away, and if they need a title they can call themselves a human. That is a fair deal.

Don

tomndebb
09-03-2010, 08:53 PM
But your statement about me becoming a suicide bomber I can not let go unchecked-----you are flat right out wrong in your value judgment about me, and you are out of line with the rules.

I’m going to let it go for the sake of the thread, and not turn this into a personal attack session that you would enjoy. So be nice and write some more that may be related to the topic. I'm not the topic, even if you want me to be. You are going to let it go because he never said that of which you are accusing him.

Get some reading comprehension and stop waving around false claims about what other posters have done.

[ /Modding ]

user_hostile
09-04-2010, 03:21 AM
I will have to get back to you (soon I hope) on the Islamic golden age as of right now we are figuring on the best way to burn the Koran, and if we should or not, and who to invite if it happens.





http://www.corvalliscommunitypages.com/asia_pacific/mathindia.htm

It's a link to a community page website--not exactly my first choice for a cite. The right frame, which contains "The History of Ganit" by Sarvesh Srivastava, claims that India came up with a lot of mathematical concepts decades or even hundreds of years before the Arabs and the West.

Now it doesn't come as any surprise to me or anyone else that India with an advanced civilization would have a bunch of crack mathematicians when the Arabs were sand eaters. But the history of civilization is replete with parallel "original" discoveries that occurred at different times and places. Srivastava seems to mix a bit of inferiority with superiority by pointing out that India first invented this, that, and other while the Arabs and West were sadly behind. So the mathematicians in the Caliphates incorporated India's rich mathematical resources, it doesn't mean they couldn't up with a few goodies of their own. The argument is more about nationalism then mathematics.

A few nit-picks: Sarvesh indicates that Lagrange worked on a solution to Pell's equation about a 1000 years after Brahmagupta had done it. That's a little disingenuous. For example, Lagrange provided a specific proof for Pell's equation; whereas Brahmagupta and others only came up with solution methods; no proofs were written AFAIK. The author makes a gaffe when, as a result of the controversial heliocentric theory, "Galileo was hanged for accepting this." I also note that multiple websites contain this same story--I'm suspicious that the author may not be original one, but instead is claiming the article as his own.

You cannot have algebra without the concept and use of Zero.

I'm not sure why this important to bring up. I'm an electrical engineer; zeros and algebra are part of my craft.

“In India (Hindus) around the 5th century A.D. a system of mathematics that made astronomical calculations easy was developed. In those times its application was limited to astronomy as its pioneers were Astronomers. As tronomical calculations are complex and involve many variables that go into the derivation of unknown quantities. Algebra is a short-hand method of calculation and by this feature it scores over conventional arithmetic.”

The Indians were not the only people to screw around with math and astronomy; what about the Mayans? The Greeks were doing this long before the 5th century C.E. Also, "... scores over conventional arithmetic" Why? It's just another way of solving a problem. Sometimes simple addition can be faster than using algebra. Depends on the situation.

Mohammad died in 632 AD, still stuck in Arabia, so clearly Islam could not have invented the concept of zero.

I never said that Islam invented the concept of zero. Islam is a religion, not a mathematical school. As for Mohammad being "stuck in Arabia"...ever been there?

India was invaded by the Arab Muslims about the 13th century, found the existing math called Bijaganitam and gave it the Arab word 'Al jabr'.

That doesn't make any sense. The word Algerbra was derived from a book entitled, "Hidab al-jabr wal-muqubala" by Mohammed ibn-Musa al-Khowarizmi. It was first written in 825 C.E. and talks about ... uh, algebra. As an additional bonus al-Khoarizimi also got the rights to the word "algorithm".

The Islamic Caliphates were interacting with India long before they took a shot at invading them. Lots of other Islamic mathematicians were cooking up ideas long before and after the tete-a-tete with India.

"Between the 10th to 13th centuries the Christian Crusades resulted in a massive exchange of ideas. The technique of algebr (algebra) could have passed on to the west at this time.

Just like India and the Caliphates would engage in the intercourse of ideas, trade, goods, and war.

So the only thing Islam gave to the concept of zero was their language and nothing more.

Well this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_in_medieval_Islam) needs some serious rebutting--good luck!

In India today they still name Bijaganit for algebra

And in Germany today they still uses the word mathematik for mathematics.

NOW can I burn the Koran as it is proved that Islam is nothing but a pack of lie.

"pack of lie"? Let's turn it around: how do I know you're not spreading a pack of lies? It's an honest question, and people on this board have held you accountable for misstating facts.

Maybe I'll go burn an American flag. And maybe not. It's a free country, but I'm inclined to believe that, in spite of my feelings and my rights, at the end of the day the price is too high--I'm too cheap to go out and buy a flag. If I want to see one get toasted, I can go down to the local VFW and watch those crazy American-haters do it instead.

qpw3141
09-04-2010, 04:50 AM
Ok let us talk about hatred.

It is OK to hate:

May as well stop there.

It certainly isn't illegal to hate and, provided your hatred doesn't propel you to do illegal things, you and your family (you'll very likely only have like minded, hate filled friends) are the only ones who will suffer.

But, really, it is an appalling waste of a life to go through it so riddled with hatred that you will devote hours of your time researching and posting on Internet forums trying to cripple others by filling them with the same hatred that cripples yourself. :(

I suppose that you are fulfilling the same role in Western culture that those who imbued hatred in the 9-11 suicide bombers fulfilled in Middle Eastern culture.

Monty
09-04-2010, 07:20 AM
Yo, Don! Did you happen to answer the question I posed? I can't seem to find your response.

bbart4
09-04-2010, 08:36 AM
...Then comes along Hasan, a home grown Muslim that preached the “factual interpretation of Islam” and kills 12 people with the hopes of being killed himself.

Every one that knew him said “he was a nice guy.”

...

You have no idea what a moderate Muslims is, you do not have a clue, and the 19 terrorist of 9/11 went to bars, eat out, were friendly, paid their bills and acted as a common Joe on the street until it came time for their deadly duty.

There is a common thread that runs threw them all, they believe in the koran, and they lie their ass off saying the Koran means peace, when it does NOT in any shape or form, but rather death to the non-believers, or subject them with a heavy slave tax, or forced conversions.

...

I’m happy you enjoyed the article on the percentages of Muslims in a country v. the degeneracy. I would say that is plenty impressive even though it goes against your pacifist doctrine built on denial of the problem.

Walfa Sulton, a de-converted Muslim from the middle east that is highly educated, hit the nail on the head when debating some top Islamic Clerics, the problem is Islam itself. It is impossible to salvage, and is not compatible with the modern world. You cannot lie about it any longer.

So called moderate Muslims should NOT have a problem with this as they lost nothing by putting the Koran in the trash and walk away, and if they need a title they can call themselves a human. That is a fair deal.

Don

Don, so should we pre-judge all Muslims in America? Should we impose collective punishment on all of them? If we suspect somebody as a Muslim, what should we do to him (keeping in mind that he might lie about his religion)? After the burning is done, what next?

Don123
09-04-2010, 10:21 AM
Try this User-Hostile


Try this site

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Indian_mathematics.html

By about 500 AD the classical era of Indian mathematics began with the work of Aryabhata…. He introduced trigonometry in order to make his astronomical calculations, based on the Greek epicycle theory, and he solved with integer solutions indeterminate equations which arose in astronomical theories.

As I understand it Trigonometry also requires a working concept of zero.

The point being Mohammad was born about 570 AD and Islam did not reach India until about the 13th century.

If trig uses the concept of zero then we should credit the ancient Egyptians as they used trig in the construction of the pyramids.

I think there is plenty of evidence that Islam had nothing to do with the concept of zero in math as a usable symbol. There is certainly nothing in the Koran or Hadith to support the claim that Islam was first in this idea. The Koran and Hadith were compiled about 175-250 years after Mohammad died.

So we still have a great problem with the time line to support Islamic propaganda.

I try to stay on topic as to why, or why not, burn the Koran in public. The massive amounts of propaganda that Islam has vomited out to the world at large is enough reason for me to strike the first match. As with most religious cults Islam puts “truth and facts” on a high standard that reaches to the moon, but then a little study finds them to be flat right out liars to the bone.

Just as Islamic Clerics are trying to reinterpret the Koran to make it “western compatible” all they do is slobber lies all over themselves. Then in dark corners Muslims scheme more terrorist attacks as what is the true meaning that the Koran stands for.

Then they came up with this “moderate Muslim” bull shit, but yet never give a definition of what is a moderate Muslim, or how you can moderately chop off a head and fingers as is commanded for all Muslims to commit jihad to non-believers.

Of course I would expect Muslims to get up set when people protest against them in public. The very act of non-belief offends their murdering Allah god and that is all the justification Muslims need to blow up another school, or plant trip wires to explosives in children’s play grounds.

Then I’m called the hateful one because I greatly protest massive, and daily, Islamic terrorist attacks as if I can be intimidated by this filthy cult.

My great limitations, and confinements, are to USA state and federal laws (see ORS 2009, chapters 163 and 164 as absolutly prohibited acts) not to mention my personal moral codes to never hurt another human even in the details of torts. All I am left with is public protest against Islam. Accordingly, Muslims on this board, and in the USA, want to take that right from me.

You bet, burn the Korans in public. The argument of “he who is without sin light the first match” does not cut it as no such restraints of this moral code are found in Islam. Besides burning Korans if properly done, does not physically hurt any one, and freedom of speech is legal in this regard. Burn that damn book of lies and be done with it.


Don

qpw3141
09-04-2010, 10:30 AM
By about 500 AD the classical era of Indian mathematics began with the work of Aryabhata…. He introduced trigonometry in order to make his astronomical calculations, based on the Greek epicycle theory, and he solved with integer solutions indeterminate equations which arose in astronomical theories.

As I understand it Trigonometry also requires a working concept of zero.

The point being Mohammad was born about 570 AD and Islam did not reach India until about the 13th century.

If trig uses the concept of zero then we should credit the ancient Egyptians as they used trig in the construction of the pyramids.

I think there is plenty of evidence that Islam had nothing to do with the concept of zero in math as a usable symbol. There is certainly nothing in the Koran or Hadith to support the claim that Islam was first in this idea. The Koran and Hadith were compiled about 175-250 years after Mohammad died.


You are confusing the concept of zero with the use of a digit to represent zero at various points within a written number. :rolleyes:

On with the attempts to generate hatred: :(

So we still have a great problem with the time line to support Islamic propaganda.

I try to stay on topic as to why, or why not, burn the Koran in public. The massive amounts of propaganda that Islam has vomited out to the world at large is enough reason for me to strike the first match. As with most religious cults Islam puts “truth and facts” on a high standard that reaches to the moon, but then a little study finds them to be flat right out liars to the bone.

Just as Islamic Clerics are trying to reinterpret the Koran to make it “western compatible” all they do is slobber lies all over themselves. Then in dark corners Muslims scheme more terrorist attacks as what is the true meaning that the Koran stands for.

Then they came up with this “moderate Muslim” bull shit, but yet never give a definition of what is a moderate Muslim, or how you can moderately chop off a head and fingers as is commanded for all Muslims to commit jihad to non-believers.

Of course I would expect Muslims to get up set when people protest against them in public. The very act of non-belief offends their murdering Allah god and that is all the justification Muslims need to blow up another school, or plant trip wires to explosives in children’s play grounds.

Then I’m called the hateful one because I greatly protest massive, and daily, Islamic terrorist attacks as if I can be intimidated by this filthy cult.

My great limitations, and confinements, are to USA state and federal laws (see ORS 2009, chapters 163 and 164 as absolutly prohibited acts) not to mention my personal moral codes to never hurt another human even in the details of torts. All I am left with is public protest against Islam. Accordingly, Muslims on this board, and in the USA, want to take that right from me.

You bet, burn the Korans in public. The argument of “he who is without sin light the first match” does not cut it as no such restraints of this moral code are found in Islam. Besides burning Korans if properly done, does not physically hurt any one, and freedom of speech is legal in this regard. Burn that damn book of lies and be done with it.

I wonder if we were to see a photograph of this poster we would see something visually similar to the wild eyed hate filled extremists that are occasionally depicted from the Middle East.

Don123
09-04-2010, 11:18 AM
To bbart4:

You said:

Don, so should we pre-judge all Muslims in America? Should we impose collective punishment on all of them? If we suspect somebody as a Muslim, what should we do to him (keeping in mind that he might lie about his religion)? After the burning is done, what next?

Don responds:

Don’t we love these multiple questions.

Yes we should prejudge all Muslims; it is their Koran not mine. But it is a matter of degrees if an act by a Muslim rises to the level of criminal prosecution by a valid court of law. It is forbidden to take the law into your own hands and the LAW is NOT up for private interpretation.

In all other ways we prejudge every person(s) we come across. You see a bunch of blacks hanging out on a street corner on your common rout home that look like they are menacing, and you are a lone white man—OH YEAH if you had any brains you would prejudge them and find a different rout to take. In fact prejudging can mean if you survive or not in this strange world we live in.

State and federal laws prohibits discrimination by reason of religion (one of several restraints) in the assess to common goods and services, in all other ways you can discriminate and prejudge all you desire as it is not a crime, and counted as your freedoms.

I see a person packing around the Koran and saying how much they believe in it, and knowing what the Koran says and the lies Muslims produce in deceit, that is all I need to know to exercise my freedoms and stay the hell away from them, that would be my first choice. I have other legal options that may come into play also.

Collective punishments, that depends on how many Muslims are involved in a crime or a tort in civil suit.

If we suspect somebody is a Muslim but have no evidence of a crime then they should be on a watch list as the FBI does, or even a private neighborhood watch list and report any suspicious activity to the authorities. You cannot take the law into your own hands—period.

After the burning of the Korans what to do? Flush the ashes down a toilet would be OK, or package the ashes and put them in a hazardous waist dump would work, but if you dump the ashes out of your car window as you drive by a pig farm you could be fined for littering. By all means know the laws and stay law abiding.


Don

Don123
09-04-2010, 11:46 AM
I wonder if we were to see a photograph of this poster we would see something visually similar to the wild eyed hate filled extremists that are occasionally depicted from the Middle East.

Don:

Then I will take it you do not have a valid come back other than personal attacks.


Don

qpw3141
09-04-2010, 12:16 PM
Then I will take it you do not have a valid come back other than personal attacks.

I didn't make any attack? :confused:

I was just wondering how much more you have in common with those in the Middle East who peddle hatred of the West. You all seem to have allowed your lives to be overtaken by blind hatred and a willingness to devote a lot of time to attacking those to whom you have taken a dislike in the hope that you can cause others to share your feelings. It's all very sad. :(

straight man
09-04-2010, 01:12 PM
If we suspect somebody is a Muslim but have no evidence of a crime then they should be on a watch list as the FBI does, or even a private neighborhood watch list and report any suspicious activity to the authorities. You cannot take the law into your own hands—period.
You understand why the watch list would be a violation of civil rights, yes?

Also, I'm envisioning a 1950's-style commercial with the line, "If you suspect someone of being a Muslim,..." Priceless. :D Or maybe a pamphlet, "Signs that your neighbour may be a Muslim" (with entries like, "mysteriously disappears five times a day", "likes fashions that cover the head", "you don't know their hair colour",...)

Also, do you have any idea how many Muslims there are in the United States? I think this is hilarious.

elucidator
09-04-2010, 01:31 PM
I wish it were hilarious. I wish I could believe he's kidding. It isn't, and he's not. When innocent Muslims start to die from this poisonous crap, I will wish I could forgive.

Don123
09-04-2010, 01:34 PM
Yo, Don! Did you happen to answer the question I posed? I can't seem to find your response.


Hasan is all over the net, you can find it, and I was wrong, he killed 13 not 12. I think another victim died in the hospital.

I did come across this you might be interested in.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/american-muslims-to-fort-hood-shooter-thanks-a-lot,6978/

FORT HOOD, TX—Following Army psychologist Nidal Malik Hasan's shooting rampage on the Fort Hood military base last week that left 13 people dead and 30 others injured, fellow Muslims across the nation sent him a message today, saying "thanks a fucking bunch, asshole," to the 39-year-old killer.

"Hey, great, eight years of progress right down the shitter," St. Cloud, MN resident Zahida Naseem said at one of dozens of impromptu rallies held nationwide. "And you just had to scream 'Allahu Akbar' while you did it, didn't you?

May as well have put on a turban and rode a fucking camel right through the army base, you dick.

Thanks for making the foreseeable future a living hell for normal, peace-loving Muslims in this country. Really appreciate it!"

American Sikhs are also reportedly enraged with Hasan, and an official statement from the National Sikh Heritage Center read, in part, "look, we got nothing to do with that guy."


Of course other Muslims said the opposite.


Muslims praise an Islamic piece of scum named Nidal Hasan!

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=115325

"Get Well Soon Major Nidal We Love You," said the website run by radicals who follow an imam once jailed in Britain. "Major Nidal Hasan M.D. An officer and a gentleman was injured while partaking in a pre-emptive attack."

"Every day is Fort Hood for the world community due to USA policies and their tyrant totalitarian puppet regimes," the activists proclaimed. "Rest assure (sic) the slain terrorists at Fort Hood are in the eternal hellfire and it is not to (sic) late for YOU to change your policies," they said.

"We pray that we may witness the dismantlement of western, secular dominance across the world as we hold it to be pagan and idolatrous in the majority of its presumptions. We seek a resurrection of the just example set forth by centuries of Islamic rule throughout the ages and we hold it to be self evident for the objective soul and mind that Allah is One and that Muhammad ibn Abdullah is His Prophet and that the religion offers the solution to all of the world's ills and afflictions."

Don comments:

You be the judge.

But of those sites listed above what one is the closest to the Islamic doctrine found in the Koran? The so called radical of course. As how else do you explain the massive wars of aggression that Islam perpetrated over the centuries. NOT to mention over 700 Koran scriptures that are nothing but curses of doom, gloom and death to all non-believers. How else do you explain 9/11 and about 16 thousand Islamic terrorist acts and tens of thousands of dead since—and that is just a small start of the carnage Islam has brought to this earth.

Hasan did as he read and studied in the Koran, as is taught over seas in all Islamic countries.

Now I will grant that I am very pleased to the Muslims that cursed Hasan all to hell for his abominations and want nothing to do with him. This gives me some hope, but in the good nature of humanity and NOT in what the Koran says.

Accordingly, should we refrain from burning the Koran in public as NOT to offend some Muslims that want peace and freedoms as I cherish, and what I want for humanity?

I say NO. Muslims have to come to grips with the reality of what Islam stands for, and it is NOT peace by any means, and the reality what is written in the Koran, and the reality of Islamic aggressive wars threw out the ages, and the reality that Mohammad was nothing but a crazy war monger and a child rapist to say the least—-and that is by their own holy books, factual history, and nothing I have made up.

This is about as far as I am going to go on this thread for a while. I thank the people that set up this site, and I thank the Mods for putting up with me. I thank all those that put out good efforts in their post.

I have learned more because of my time spent in study, and I’m the better person for it.

Good luck to you as you find your way in life in strange and dangerous world.

And stay law abiding regardless of what the Koran says.


Don

John DiFool
09-04-2010, 01:41 PM
I would like to see a Muslim sect appear as this:

We are NEW Age Muslims, we have this NEW revelation from Allah, we stripped all the criminal activity out of the Koran and rewrote the book. NEW and improved. Tell us how you like it. We are NOT the other guys that rape children, and raid towns, do NOT blame US we live in peace and want freedoms.

It already exists (more or less), and is called Sufism-and lo and behold, the head of the not-quite Ground Zero Islamic center is a Sufi.

LeeshaJoy
09-04-2010, 02:39 PM
Yo, Don! Did you happen to answer the question I posed? I can't seem to find your response.


Hasan is all over the net, you can find it, and I was wrong, he killed 13 not 12. I think another victim died in the hospital.

I did come across this you might be interested in.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/american-muslims-to-fort-hood-shooter-thanks-a-lot,6978/

You do realize that The Onion is a work of satire, right? :dubious:

Kobal2
09-04-2010, 04:03 PM
You do realize that The Onion is a work of satire, right? :dubious:

Don's so law abiding, he even abides by Poe's Law.

Magiver
09-04-2010, 04:07 PM
I wish it were hilarious. I wish I could believe he's kidding. It isn't, and he's not. When innocent Muslims start to die from this poisonous crap, I will wish I could forgive. Innocent Muslims have been dying from this crap for quite some time, by other Muslims. Have you forgiven them?

We'll just ignore 9/11 and all the other terrorist acts too numerous to list because it's not politically correct to acknowledge a common denominator. It's always some other reason that 100 cars were set fire every day for a year in France after riots started because some kids died trespassing in an electrical sub station. It's poverty or political persecution that drives it. It doesn't matter that there are plenty of other poor ethnicities and religions around the world NOT rioting over cartoons and books or movies. The Fatwas issued to kill someone freely expressing an idea has NOTHING to do with the religion. It's not a religious connection if children are brainwashed in schools that terrorist groups can pick from for their virgin express train wreck to heaven.

But you can't blame all Muslims, its just a few...... thousand. We'll just ignore the 25 million in Saudi Arabia who are living in the dark ages and spawned the 9/11 terrorists. No religious connection to what is taught by Imams there. We'll ignore the thousands of Taliban and similar groups that teach real hate, not the book burning symbolism driving this thread.

Every religion has within it's ranks a varied intensity of spirit. Down to the individual congregation each has a scale of belief that varies on a scale consistent to the message taught at that location. Islam's version of leaders such as Fred Phelps have at their disposal a warrior prophet who has codified the actions expected of his followers. The Ft Hood shooter followed one of those leaders. His Imam was educated in the United States and led a mosque in the United States. This was all done in plain sight.

"But it's only a few Muslims" means we treat our neighbors with the utmost respect as individuals but it does NOT mean we do not criticize the religion when the acts of terrorism are an express codification of it's prophet.

The people who should be burning Korans in protest are Muslims who don't want the warrior side of Mohammad co-opting the peaceful side of his teachings.

Monty
09-04-2010, 04:20 PM
Don: You still haven't answered my question. Let's try it again:

Who hired Major Hasan to teach his religion for the salary you stated upthread?

And, no, I'm not scouring the Internet to find proof of something you asserted. You asserted it so you should post direct, concise proof of the assertion.

Gyrate
09-04-2010, 05:15 PM
Never mind the whole Islam thing; I want to know who in academia is getting six-figure salaries these days.

It's a pity Don's decided to walk away after he'd so neatly proved my point that there's nothing individual Muslims can do to demonstrate that they are not terrorists. I point out that there are millions of peaceful productive loving Muslims in the US alone and he goes and calls them all terrorists-in-waiting. I wish he'd stayed a bit longer; I'd really like to know how much longer I have to wait before my Muslim friends and work colleagues suddenly turn on me. In some cases I've known them for more than a decade so it'll probably be soon,I'm guessing.

But at least he threw them a bone - I mean, he offers them a "fair deal" in that they could renounce Islam in return for...well, I don't know. Getting Don off their backs, perhaps. One could almost see the appeal.

bbart4
09-04-2010, 09:21 PM
But at least he threw them a bone - I mean, he offers them a "fair deal" in that they could renounce Islam in return for...well, I don't know. Getting Don off their backs, perhaps. One could almost see the appeal.

It's not even that. Even if they renounce their religion, it is up to Don apparently to decide if they're muslim or not since they do lie about their religion. By that logic, ss soon as someone is suspected as a muslim, that's it: He should be on the watch list and pronounced guilty and he can't prove otherwise. The Onion and hate sites backup his assertions.

elucidator
09-04-2010, 09:46 PM
There are some certainties, even in a mess like this. For instance, it is certain that the 200 or so people burning Korans are not, themselves, Muslim. Even the holy virtues of Islam, sneakiness and skulduggery, wouldn't permit that level of dissimulation.

We can be equally assured that the 20,000 or so young men who, as a result, rush to wherever they go to offer themselves to Al Queda (gymnasiums and cultural centers, from what I'm told...), those young men are most definitely Muslims.

Oddly enough, they are most likely to be extreme Sunni Muslims, of a stripe the despises the Sufi doctrines preached by the "terror mosque" imam with every fiber of their being. Osama has good reason to think God is on his side, we keep delivering him miracles.

cosmosdan
09-04-2010, 10:35 PM
I wish it were hilarious. I wish I could believe he's kidding. It isn't, and he's not. When innocent Muslims start to die from this poisonous crap, I will wish I could forgive. Innocent Muslims have been dying from this crap for quite some time, by other Muslims. Have you forgiven them?

We'll just ignore 9/11 and all the other terrorist acts too numerous to list because it's not politically correct to acknowledge a common denominator. It's always some other reason that 100 cars were set fire every day for a year in France after riots started because some kids died trespassing in an electrical sub station. It's poverty or political persecution that drives it. It doesn't matter that there are plenty of other poor ethnicities and religions around the world NOT rioting over cartoons and books or movies. The Fatwas issued to kill someone freely expressing an idea has NOTHING to do with the religion. It's not a religious connection if children are brainwashed in schools that terrorist groups can pick from for their virgin express train wreck to heaven.

But you can't blame all Muslims, its just a few...... thousand. We'll just ignore the 25 million in Saudi Arabia who are living in the dark ages and spawned the 9/11 terrorists. No religious connection to what is taught by Imams there. We'll ignore the thousands of Taliban and similar groups that teach real hate, not the book burning symbolism driving this thread.

Every religion has within it's ranks a varied intensity of spirit. Down to the individual congregation each has a scale of belief that varies on a scale consistent to the message taught at that location. Islam's version of leaders such as Fred Phelps have at their disposal a warrior prophet who has codified the actions expected of his followers. The Ft Hood shooter followed one of those leaders. His Imam was educated in the United States and led a mosque in the United States. This was all done in plain sight.

"But it's only a few Muslims" means we treat our neighbors with the utmost respect as individuals but it does NOT mean we do not criticize the religion when the acts of terrorism are an express codification of it's prophet.

The people who should be burning Korans in protest are Muslims who don't want the warrior side of Mohammad co-opting the peaceful side of his teachings.

What do you think are practical solutions?

elucidator
09-04-2010, 11:05 PM
We Americans have, historically, trusted in God's infinite powers of identification and sorting. We need only deliver them into His hands.

Uzi
09-04-2010, 11:48 PM
But at least he threw them a bone - I mean, he offers them a "fair deal" in that they could renounce Islam in return for...well, I don't know.

Sorry, Dude. Someone must have asked Muhammad 1400 years ago the same question about 'fair deal'. Don is just following the fine tradition of the religion you are defending. So, to be fair you'd have to have the same derision for both as both are saying essentially the same thing. Yet one is just a blowhard on the internet (aren't we all) and the other represents god's words that people are supposed to live by:
Sahih Muslim (19:4294) - "When you meet your enemies who are polytheists [Christians...], invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them"

elucidator
09-05-2010, 01:34 AM
No problem offering equality of derision, but you are demanding we consider Muslims as an exceptional case. You offer text from the Koran as if it proves something exceptional, as though the history of the Islamic world were distinctly and exceptionally bloodier and more violent than say, the Christian or Jewish traditions. Which just ain't so.

The Koran has passages that exhort to violence, you say? The Christian Bible has few, if any passage similar? OK, lets say that's true, so what? The lack of such textual bloodlust certainly didn't slow them down any, now did it? By which we may reasonably conclude that the presence or absence of such scriptural license has squat-all to do with any subsequent aggressiveness or violence.

Don't hear you saying Jews can't be trusted, and their holy book is knee-deep in gore. The Book of Mormon is fairly lively, blood wise, don't hear you say we all gotta drive to Utah and piss on Brigham Youngs grave.

Muslims are no more human nor any less human than humans. That's the good news, and the bad news, all in one breath.

Kobal2
09-05-2010, 06:22 AM
But at least he threw them a bone - I mean, he offers them a "fair deal" in that they could renounce Islam in return for...well, I don't know.

Sorry, Dude. Someone must have asked Muhammad 1400 years ago the same question about 'fair deal'. Don is just following the fine tradition of the religion you are defending. So, to be fair you'd have to have the same derision for both as both are saying essentially the same thing. Yet one is just a blowhard on the internet (aren't we all) and the other represents god's words that people are supposed to live by:
Sahih Muslim (19:4294) - "When you meet your enemies who are polytheists [Christians...], invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them"


How is that different from the way Christians did war back then ?
Also, what's the prescribed course of action with enemies who are Muslims ? This is a real question, I'm not being candid or trying to gotcha you. But based on history, seems to me they would just be one option short.

tomndebb
09-05-2010, 09:58 AM
It's always some other reason that 100 cars were set fire every day for a year in France after riots started because some kids died trespassing in an electrical sub station. It's poverty or political persecution that drives it. It doesn't matter that there are plenty of other poor ethnicities and religions .While you were making some great attempt at irony, the really ironic thing is that your statement was more true than not. The kids who rioted in France were the children of poor immigrants, whose parents were several times quoted lamenting that their kids were not observant Muslims, but who felt that they were being singled out for harrassment by the police because of their perceived religion, (that they were not even practicing).

As to other poor ethnicities and religions, you may have, perhaps missed it, but such kids are often involved in destructive riots. And while there was a small spillover from France to neighboring countries for less than a week, the rioting was pretty much limited to France, while I would expect that a "Muslim" problem would have included Germany, Sweden, Italy, Great Britain, etc. So, in your view, a specific social problem in a particular country becomes a "Muslim" issue while any similar event, elsewhere, is simply a matter of local conditions.

It is not so much that every Muslim "problem" is excused for other reasons as that you go out of your way to selectively create an artificial link to Muslims among separate problems. Sucicide bombings by Hindu Muslim Tamils gets ignored for the fact that suicide bombings are "Muslim." Kids rioting in different locations are just sports riots or against police brutality unless the kids are Muslim (or children of Muslims), then it is a "Muslim" issue.

Kobal2
09-05-2010, 11:03 AM
While you were making some great attempt at irony, the really ironic thing is that your statement was more true than not. The kids who rioted in France were the children of poor immigrants, whose parents were several times quoted lamenting that their kids were not observant Muslims, but who felt that they were being singled out for harrassment by the police because of their perceived religion, (that they were not even practicing).

I'd missed that. Let me assure you Magiver cause, err, I was there (albeit at a safe distance)that the kids burning cars and looting supermarkets were certainly not all Muslims - of course, it's impossible to tell someone's religion just by looking at him, but the common denominator there was "kid from the projects", not "kid with a beard". Nor did the riots last a year, what are you, nuts ?

And seeing as I've been to school and university and worked with kids from the projects, who expressed the same concerns about police oppression, social shunning, racism, injustice of "the system", lack of hope and disenfranchisement whether they were black, white, brown, Muslims, Christians, religious or atheists (the grand majority couldn't care less about any sort of religion anyway)... yeah.

If you ever really want to understand why those riots happened, watch the movie La Haine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Haine). Not only is it a brilliant bit of filmmaking, it could have been a documentary. And nothing has changed since it was filmed - in fact, Sarkozy's ultra repressive bent probably made things even worse.

But if you can't be arsed, just tell me, was is because of them Muslims the LA riots erupted in similar violence, for similar reasons, back in the nineties ?

Uzi
09-05-2010, 12:17 PM
No problem offering equality of derision, but you are demanding we consider Muslims as an exceptional case. You offer text from the Koran as if it proves something exceptional, as though the history of the Islamic world were distinctly and exceptionally bloodier and more violent than say, the Christian or Jewish traditions. Which just ain't so.

Not at all. What I want people to understand that it is easier to leave the butchery behind when your so called prophet says 'love thy neighbor', than if he says, 'kill the infidel' (whether you want to say it is self defense or not: Does self defense mean you can act proactively?)

OK, lets say that's true, so what? The lack of such textual bloodlust certainly didn't slow them down any, now did it? By which we may reasonably conclude that the presence or absence of such scriptural license has squat-all to do with any subsequent aggressiveness or violence.

So, you are proponent that words mean nothing and people don't act upon them even if they do? That people who have the exact same culture, look exactly the same, speak the same language, and the only reasonable explanation as to why they are killing each other is how they interpret their holy book, is attributable to some other factor unknown and unseen?

Don't hear you saying Jews can't be trusted, and their holy book is knee-deep in gore. The Book of Mormon is fairly lively, blood wise, don't hear you say we all gotta drive to Utah and piss on Brigham Youngs grave.

As I said somewhat earlier, if they start using their holy book to justify their actions in killing others then I will say that their holy books are equal in evil to the Koran. If there are passages in them that can be interpreted to allow them to kill other people, then someone somewhere will probably use that as an excuse to act. But culture also plays a role in how people act and may stop them from doing so, too.
How people may have followed these books and interpreted them 100's if not 1000's of years ago is not something that should concern you and I today in this context. How people interpret and follow their book today should.

Muslims are no more human nor any less human than humans. That's the good news, and the bad news, all in one breath.

Which I've said earlier, too. But if a book gives you license to become a martyr then it is not unreasonable to expect someone to interpret it that way and act upon it.

My thought is that if you have laws that say it is okay to beat your wife, and even though few act upon it, then it still makes sense to change the law to explicitly say that it is not okay to do so and remove the ambiguity once and for all.

elucidator
09-05-2010, 02:55 PM
You want to send the Koran back to re-write?

Uzi
09-05-2010, 03:11 PM
Why not? Same with the Bible. If god objects then he can stop any changes from happening. Somehow I'm pretty sure he won't.

Magiver
09-06-2010, 01:26 AM
The kids who rioted in France were the children of poor immigrants, whose parents were several times quoted lamenting that their kids were not observant Muslims, but who felt that they were being singled out for harrassment by the police because of their perceived religion, (that they were not even practicing.

As to other poor ethnicities and religions, you may have, perhaps missed it, but such kids are often involved in destructive riots. And while there was a small spillover from France to neighboring countries for less than a week, the rioting was pretty much limited to France, while I would expect that a "Muslim" problem would have included Germany, Sweden, Italy, Great Britain, etc. So, in your view, a specific social problem in a particular country becomes a "Muslim" issue while any similar event, elsewhere, is simply a matter of local conditions.

Which is it? First you assigned poverty to explain the yearlong riots then you said it spilled over into other countries. Is France now responsible for poverty in other countries? Did the LA riots spill over into other countries. Did they last a year? Poverty is a poor excuse.

It is not so much that every Muslim "problem" is excused for other reasons as that you go out of your way to selectively create an artificial link to Muslims among separate problems. Sucicide bombings by Hindu Muslim Tamils gets ignored for the fact that suicide bombings are "Muslim." Kids rioting in different locations are just sports riots or against police brutality unless the kids are Muslim (or children of Muslims), then it is a "Muslim" issue.
I’m not sure what a Hindu Muslim is but they don’t appear to be actively engaged in fatwas or riots over cartoons, books, movies, statements and other perceived injustices from a distant land.

tomndebb
09-06-2010, 09:34 AM
The kids who rioted in France were the children of poor immigrants, whose parents were several times quoted lamenting that their kids were not observant Muslims, but who felt that they were being singled out for harrassment by the police because of their perceived religion, (that they were not even practicing.

As to other poor ethnicities and religions, you may have, perhaps missed it, but such kids are often involved in destructive riots. And while there was a small spillover from France to neighboring countries for less than a week, the rioting was pretty much limited to France, while I would expect that a "Muslim" problem would have included Germany, Sweden, Italy, Great Britain, etc. So, in your view, a specific social problem in a particular country becomes a "Muslim" issue while any similar event, elsewhere, is simply a matter of local conditions.

Which is it? First you assigned poverty to explain the yearlong riots then you said it spilled over into other countries. Is France now responsible for poverty in other countries? Did the LA riots spill over into other countries. Did they last a year? Poverty is a poor excuse. The riots among the disaffected youth spilled over to other countries for a week or so. They, like the French violence, occurred among the poor immigrant communities. The proximity of France to other countries meant that kids in similar conditions thought it would be fun to emulate the French kids. That really is not that hard to understand. The summer riots of the 1960s in the U.S. followed a similar trend, as did the various campus "rebellions" at the end of the 1960s.

It is not so much that every Muslim "problem" is excused for other reasons as that you go out of your way to selectively create an artificial link to Muslims among separate problems. Sucicide bombings by Hindu Muslim Tamils gets ignored for the fact that suicide bombings are "Muslim." Kids rioting in different locations are just sports riots or against police brutality unless the kids are Muslim (or children of Muslims), then it is a "Muslim" issue.
I’m not sure what a Hindu Muslim is but they don’t appear to be actively engaged in fatwas or riots over cartoons, books, movies, statements and other perceived injustices from a distant land."Hindu Muslim" was a typo for "Hindu, not Muslim." Other than that, you are simply repeating your effort to link all things done by anyone Muslim as "Islamic," regardless of the actual causes.
The riots over the cartoons were, indeed, an action directly tied to Islam and the perception that the West is disrespectful of all things Muslim. The Fundamentalist Islam promoted by the Wahhabists has been very successful in exploiting perceived insults against their beliefs. I have never denied that the Wahhabists and other Islamic Fundamentalists are a growing power and a growing problem. My objection is to the silly notion that it is "Islam," (including Sufi community organizers in Manhattan), that is at the core of the problems, failing to distinguish between those who are filled with hatred and those who are just trying to get along with their lives and even throwing in people who are not following Islam, like the French rioters, simply because it is easier to pretend that "Islam" is causing a problem than to take the time to find out the facts on the ground.

Uzi
09-06-2010, 10:04 AM
My objection is to the silly notion that it is "Islam,"

Would you object to saying that Christianity is Catholicism?

Gyrate
09-06-2010, 10:16 AM
Don is just following the fine tradition of the religion you are defending.You may find this hard to believe but I don't jump into these threads because I want to defend Islam. I'm not a Muslims (heck, I'm an agnostic) and I freely admit that, as tomndebb rightly points out, there is an obvious and growing problem of radical Islamic groups plotting and carrying out violent attacks.

Instead, I jump into these threads because I want to oppose blind hatred. When I see people - and Americans in particular - suggesting that we need to put anyone who is a Muslim, was a Muslim or might be a Muslim on a watchlist because a tiny number of Muslims Did A Very Bad Thing, it makes me mighty tetchy because what they're doing is exactly what the terrorists want - destroying our freedoms. That's stupid, harmful to the ideals America purports to stand for and inflicts a lot of misery on a lot of innocent people.

It's a lot harder to take the effort - and admittedly the risk, however infinitessimal - to distinguish between those who pose a genuine threat to us and the vast majority of others who don't and could actually be helpful in our goals if only we'd stop trying to tar them with the same enormous brush as the terrorists. We talk a lot about the price of freedom, usually in the context of sending soldiers out into the world to kill other people, but a bigger part of that price is making sure that we don't give away so easily the freedoms that generations of those soldiers fought and died for.

qpw3141
09-06-2010, 10:17 AM
My objection is to the silly notion that it is "Islam,"

Would you object to saying that Christianity is Catholicism?

What relevance does that have?

The problem with those on this board who are trying to stir up hatred of Muslims is that they are ascribing everything bad that happens to be done by a group of Muslims to the fact that they are Muslims in a way that they do not ascribe everything bad done by a group of people who happen to be Christians (Or Jews, or Jains, or Buddhists) to the fact that they follow a particular religion.

tomndebb
09-06-2010, 11:11 AM
Would you object to saying that Christianity is Catholicism?Well, given that it is clearly a false statement, sure.

Catholicism is one facet of Christianity. Friends/Quakers are a different facet of Christianity. Aryan Nations is a yet different facet of Christianity.

If you find any Quakers violently robbing armored cars and engaging in similar acts while claiming that their beliefs require those actions, then I will consider equating Wahhabists to all Islam.

If you do not, you are simply engaged in lazy thinking to associate all Muslims with Wahhabist beliefs and actions.

Uzi
09-06-2010, 11:55 AM
Would you object to saying that Christianity is Catholicism?

What relevance does that have?

Addressing tomndebb's point about what is Islam. If he isn't willing to say that the 50% of Christians that are Catholic define what Christianity is, then there is no point in ever saying what amount of fundamentalists define Islam. The real question is if the book is correctly interpreted by these 'fundamentalists'. If it is then that is the norm and there will always be someone willing to follow by taking it at its word. Which is the word of god, btw.

The problem with those on this board who are trying to stir up hatred of Muslims is that they are ascribing everything bad that happens to be done by a group of Muslims to the fact that they are Muslims in a way that they do not ascribe everything bad done by a group of people who happen to be Christians (Or Jews, or Jains, or Buddhists) to the fact that they follow a particular religion.

My problem is with people who ignore the obvious connection between what some Muslims do and the fact that they most likely wouldn't be doing it if they weren't Muslims. Would there be a conflict in Palestine if all the people there were Jews? Or Muslims? No, the problem as it exists between Jews and Muslims in Israel is that they are Jews and Muslims. It is also telling that the countries who for the most part don't recognize Israel as a state are Muslim in some cases with no common denominator other than the religion itself.
For people to continually deny a connection between religion and how people act who follow them is completely naive. It's like saying that my car manual tells me to torque the wheel nut to 100ft/lbs and instead of using a torque wrench, I'll just use a hammer and bash away until it becomes tight. The book is there for me to read and follow. That some people just use a wrench and tighten it until they feel it is tight, doesn't mean they are doing it much better or worse than the guy with a hammer, but it does ignore that the book says 100 and not 50 or 200. But it shouldn't be surprising that some people will actually get a torque wrench and tighten the bolt to the specs that the book, and the 'engineer' who wrote it, requires it to be set to.

If you do not, you are simply engaged in lazy thinking to associate all Muslims with Wahhabist beliefs and actions.

So, essentially, only if 101% of Muslims act like fundamentalists will you admit that there is any relation to fundamentalist thought and the religion. 50% doesn't cut it. Why bring it up at all? To continue with your analogy, Quakers are no more representative of Christianity than the Aryan Nations. If 50% isn't representative, then what is? In other words, nothing is and you make it up as you see fit.

The only solution is to go back to what the book actually says (because that is the guide and words have meaning and can be parsed for content) and who is following it the closest.

Magiver
09-06-2010, 12:04 PM
The riots among the disaffected youth spilled over to other countries for a week or so. They, like the French violence, occurred among the poor immigrant communities. The proximity of France to other countries meant that kids in similar conditions thought it would be fun to emulate the French kids. That really is not that hard to understand. The summer riots of the 1960s in the U.S. followed a similar trend, as did the various campus "rebellions" at the end of the 1960s. That doesn't even begin to explain the time span of the riots.

qpw3141
09-06-2010, 12:10 PM
Addressing tomndebb's point about what is Islam. If he isn't willing to say that the 50% of Christians that are Catholic define what Christianity is, then there is no point in ever saying what amount of fundamentalists define Islam. The real question is if the book is correctly interpreted by these 'fundamentalists'. If it is then that is the norm and there will always be someone willing to follow by taking it at its word. Which is the word of god, btw.
So if we highlight some fundamentalist Jews who've done something evil for which they can claim authority from their holy book we can paint all Jews as Evil?

And, as a lot of Christians also hold the OT in some esteem, can we apply the same rule there?

Or is it one rule for Muslims and one rule for everyone else?

My problem is with people who ignore the obvious connection between what some Muslims do and the fact that they most likely wouldn't be doing it if they weren't Muslims.

Where ever you get extremists you'll find they have some sort of axe to grind and claim some special authority for acting the way they do. In the case of Muslim extremists it's often the Qur'an - even though a far greater number of Muslims explicitly tell them that they are wrong.

There are some pretty ugly people doing some pretty ugly things claiming the bible at their authority and yet you don't obsess about that in the same way.

tomndebb
09-06-2010, 12:32 PM
Addressing tomndebb's point about what is Islam. If he isn't willing to say that the 50% of Christians that are Catholic define what Christianity is, then there is no point in ever saying what amount of fundamentalists define Islam. The real question is if the book is correctly interpreted by these 'fundamentalists'. If it is then that is the norm and there will always be someone willing to follow by taking it at its word. Which is the word of god, btw.Catholics might make up about a third of Christians, possibly a bit more, but not half. The fact that Catholic belief and practice ranges from the Pius X groups who nearly deny the declarations of the Second Vatican Council to people embracing Liberation Theology and people engaged in the near-Pentacostal rites of the Charismatics means that Catholicism is so far from monolithic that it cannot be used to "define" Christianity even if it did make up half of the Christian population.

Trying to hang labels on people by what you want to tell them what to believe is silly, in any event. Following your logic, we need to take steps to protect ourselves from the Quakers and the Amish, because just looking at the Aryan Natiuons we can tell what Christians "might" do.

For people to continually deny a connection between religion and how people act who follow them is completely naive. It's like saying that my car manual tells me to torque the wheel nut to 100ft/lbs and instead of using a torque wrench, I'll just use a hammer and bash away until it becomes tight. The book is there for me to read and follow. That some people just use a wrench and tighten it until they feel it is tight, doesn't mean they are doing it much better or worse than the guy with a hammer, but it does ignore that the book says 100 and not 50 or 200. But it shouldn't be surprising that some people will actually get a torque wrench and tighten the bolt to the specs that the book, and the 'engineer' who wrote it, requires it to be set to.On the other hand, if you are going to ignore the fact that the people who follow a book have generally not behaved in the way that you want to impose on them through your own limited interpretation for the last 1300+ years, then you can simply make up anything you want to believce about them. You'll be wrong, but you can make up whatever you want.

So, essentially, only if 101% of Muslims act like fundamentalists will you admit that there is any relation to fundamentalist thought and the religion. 50% doesn't cut it. Why bring it up at all? To continue with your analogy, Quakers are no more representative of Christianity than the Aryan Nations. If 50% isn't representative, then what is? In other words, nothing is and you make it up as you see fit.You are the one making up stuff about how those people have to believe one thing or another. I am quite willing to accept that the Wahhabists and some other Fundamentalist Islamic groups believe in carrying out the fiercest passages of the Qur'an. The fact that the vast majority of Muslims have never engaged in that behavior for more than 1300 years should be a good clue to any thinking person that that is not how they interpret their scriptures.

tomndebb
09-06-2010, 12:35 PM
That doesn't even begin to explain the time span of the riots.Neither does trying to blame it on "Islam" when the vast majority of the rioters never attended mosques and many of them were nominally Christian.
You are trying to blame a religious belief for the actions of people who do not even hold that belief.

Magiver
09-06-2010, 01:05 PM
That doesn't even begin to explain the time span of the riots.Neither does trying to blame it on "Islam" when the vast majority of the rioters never attended mosques and many of them were nominally Christian.
You are trying to blame a religious belief for the actions of people who do not even hold that belief. Pointing out a common denominator in a situation is not the same as blaming every Muslim on the planet. It is an acknowledgment of a connection to the religion and it's cultural/political/social hold on people. You acknowledge such things exist in the abstract but argue against any examples brought forward.

qpw3141
09-06-2010, 01:13 PM
Neither does trying to blame it on "Islam" when the vast majority of the rioters never attended mosques and many of them were nominally Christian.
You are trying to blame a religious belief for the actions of people who do not even hold that belief. Pointing out a common denominator in a situation is not the same as blaming every Muslim on the planet. It is an acknowledgment of a connection to the religion and it's cultural/political/social hold on people. You acknowledge such things exist in the abstract but argue against any examples brought forward.

The problem is with the way certain people obsess about it.

Can you imagine if someone pointed out that every US president who took their country into war was a Christian and on that basis Christianity was in some way evil?

Picking some identifying attribute and making lists of undesirable actions by people who happen to share that attribute is the action of a rabble rouser, not a serious debater.

tomndebb
09-06-2010, 01:22 PM
Neither does trying to blame it on "Islam" when the vast majority of the rioters never attended mosques and many of them were nominally Christian.
You are trying to blame a religious belief for the actions of people who do not even hold that belief. Pointing out a common denominator in a situation is not the same as blaming every Muslim on the planet. It is an acknowledgment of a connection to the religion and it's cultural/political/social hold on people. You acknowledge such things exist in the abstract but argue against any examples brought forward.But your "common denominator" does not even exist in the example of the French rioters. They were not all Muslim. Those who were Muslims were not observant. The religion of Islam did not play a role in sparking or perpetuating the riots. You are taking a coincidence and trying to draw a conclusion from it.

I do not argue against it in the particulars. The riots against the cartoons of Mohammed were directly connected to the religion, (with some other cultural associations). The French youth riots had no such connection, but you want to assign it a connection because some of the kids had Muslim parents.

JimNightshade
09-06-2010, 01:47 PM
First thing I remember was askin' papa, "Why?",
For there were many things I didn't know.
And Daddy always smiled; took me by the hand,
Sayin', "Someday you'll understand."

CHORUS:
Well, I'm here to tell you now each and ev'ry mother's son
You better learn it fast; you better learn it young,
'Cause, "Someday" Never Comes."

Well, time and tears went by and I collected dust,
For there were many things I didn't know.
When Daddy went away, he said, "Try to be a man,
And, Someday you'll understand."

I have a feeling it's all in the family.

Uzi
09-06-2010, 03:01 PM
So if we highlight some fundamentalist Jews who've done something evil for which they can claim authority from their holy book we can paint all Jews as Evil?

I have never said that all Muslims, the majority of Muslims, or anything but a small minority of Muslims do evil things. I am claiming that their book is evil and full of hatred towards others who do not follow it. I am making the claim that because of that it allows certain people to use that as the reason for the acts they commit. I am also making the claim that because the majority of believers in this book don't do evil things, it doesn't make the book any less evil because of it. They do the things they do because most people just want to live their lives in peace and ignore those writings that require them to do something else.
And I am also saying that as long as the book exists in its present form, people will continue to use it for the evil they do. The same goes for Christians who use the bible to justify their hatred of gays, etc. Remove or change the passages that justify their hatred and they don't have legs to stand upon.

elucidator
09-06-2010, 03:33 PM
I see. So, you would like to enter into a dialog, to point out the error of their ways and to bring them to a more benign understanding. And your first gesture to open this dialog is to pee in their face?

I have it on good authority...my Mom, my Sunday School teachers, that sort...that such an approach is very likely to be counterproductive.

elucidator
09-06-2010, 03:48 PM
And this just in...

Petraeus Condemns U.S. Church's Plan to Burn Qurans

The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan said the planned burning of Qurans on Sept. 11 by a Florida church could put the lives of American troops in danger and damage the war effort.

Gen. David Petraeus said the Taliban would exploit the demonstration for propaganda purposes, drumming up anger toward the U.S. and making it harder for allied troops to carry out their mission of protecting Afghan civilians....

Why do you guys hate our heroes?

Uzi
09-06-2010, 03:54 PM
I see. So, you would like to enter into a dialog, to point out the error of their ways and to bring them to a more benign understanding. And your first gesture to open this dialog is to pee in their face?

Ah, which is different than their book telling them to kill or convert me the first chance they get?
"Please, kind Sirs. Could you please remove the material from your book that says I must be killed, converted, or made to pay 'special' taxes as it upsets me. Just so you know that I don't like being threatened, but rather than taking it as a direct threat and doing unto others before they do unto me, I'll just let you know my displeasure with these statements by destroying copies of the book that I own."
That what you're looking for?

Captain Amazing
09-06-2010, 05:18 PM
Ah, which is different than their book telling them to kill or convert me the first chance they get?

Yes. Look, Muslims believe the Quran is a holy book written by God, so they can't change it, because if they change it, that would be them denying the holy nature and divine authorship of the book, which would call into question the entire truth of Islam. So they're not going to do that.

But the more pertinent question isn't what the Quran says. The question is what Muslims believe, and what Muslims believe is only partly influenced by what the Quran says. It's also influenced by the society in which Muslims live, and there are a whole lot of Muslims who don't think you should be killed or forcibly converted (although if you voluntarily convert, they'll still be glad to have you).

It's like how the Christian bible has all sorts of stuff in it about stoning adulterers to death, and how everyone who's not Christian is damned, and how it's ok to own slaves, but most modern Christians in America, even though they believe the Bible is the word of God and would never cut out those parts of the bible, don't keep slaves or stone adulterers or run around saying that people are going to hell.

That's how religions work. They ignore or reinterpret the parts of their holy books that no longer work in the society in which they exist. The problem with burning the Quran is that not only do you piss off the Muslims who think you should be killed or forcibly converted, you'll also piss off all the Muslims who don't think you should be killed or forcibly converted, because you're destroying the book that they think is sacred too. And, do you really want to piss them off? Wouldn't it be smarter to get them on your side against the people who think you should be forcibly converted or killed? The cause of freedom and tolerance has enough enemies that it doesn't need to piss off its allies or people who could be its allies.

Revenant Threshold
09-06-2010, 05:41 PM
And I am also saying that as long as the book exists in its present form, people will continue to use it for the evil they do. The same goes for Christians who use the bible to justify their hatred of gays, etc. Remove or change the passages that justify their hatred and they don't have legs to stand upon. I'd tend to say that you could have the nicest possible holy book imaginable - "Free hugs and give lots of money to charity" and all that kind of thing - and people who wanted to cause violence and wanted a rationale would be perfectly able to conjure themselves up that rationale from that book.

As much as it might be nice for us to think "Ah, it is the book's fault. Without the bad words, people will be unable to do bad things! Gotcha!" the desire to do bad things arises from us. There is no text so excellently written nor full of love and happiness and puppies that a motivated person cannot derive "Yes, you may go out and kill/rape/steal" from.

I mean, shit, look at us athiests. We don't have any holy books at all. Yet we've managed to do all those unpleasant things. Humans don't need encouragement, and will ignore chastisement. It's what we do.

Uzi
09-06-2010, 06:24 PM
Why should I worry about what is in the Koran when the people in this thread can't even read what I have written and parse it correctly.

I'd tend to say that you could have the nicest possible holy book imaginable - "Free hugs and give lots of money to charity" and all that kind of thing - and people who wanted to cause violence and wanted a rationale would be perfectly able to conjure themselves up that rationale from that book.

I said the essentially the same thing part way through this thread. But it makes it easier when you know god wants you to kill others when you're doing it, doesn't it?

But the more pertinent question isn't what the Quran says. The question is what Muslims believe, and what Muslims believe is only partly influenced by what the Quran says. It's also influenced by the society in which Muslims live, and there are a whole lot of Muslims who don't think you should be killed or forcibly converted (although if you voluntarily convert, they'll still be glad to have you).

Finally, someone admits that the holy book in question CAN influence the behavior of its followers.

And, do you really want to piss them off?

Why not? It gives everyone a chance to talk about free speech and why it is far, far more important than some questionable holy book that people seem to pick and choose from given the situation.

Magiver
09-06-2010, 06:31 PM
The problem is with the way certain people obsess about it.

Can you imagine if someone pointed out that every US president who took their country into war was a Christian and on that basis Christianity was in some way evil? I can imagine if a single US president threatened to wipe another country off the map while discussing the second coming of Jesus it would make the papers.

Picking some identifying attribute and making lists of undesirable actions by people who happen to share that attribute is the action of a rabble rouser, not a serious debater. Picking poverty as an identifying attribute may explain rioting for a day, or even a couple of days. It does not explain the year long riots in France. The reality that there is an Islamic connection can be seen in the The Union of French Islamic Organizations (http://www.islamopediaonline.org/news/french-fatwa-condemns-riot-violence) which issued a fatwa addressing the riots.

Captain Amazing
09-06-2010, 06:45 PM
Why not? It gives everyone a chance to talk about free speech and why it is far, far more important than some questionable holy book that people seem to pick and choose from given the situation.

Because that's not how conversations like that go, and I think you know that. When people are upset they don't care about free speech. You burn a Quran, most Muslims aren't going to think to themselves, "Oh, that person burned a Quran. Well, I guess in a liberal society, it's important that the rights of someone to do something offensive be protected." They're going to think, "I can't believe this person is burning a Quran. It just goes to show how much people hate Muslims."

tomndebb
09-06-2010, 07:33 PM
The reality that there is an Islamic connection can be seen in the The Union of French Islamic Organizations (http://www.islamopediaonline.org/news/french-fatwa-condemns-riot-violence) which issued a fatwa addressing the riots.No. According to your link, Sarkozy was making vague claims--without providing any evidence--and the Islamic leaders issued a fatwah condemning the rioting to head off any more such silly claims.Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy and other officials have been hinting that some Muslim groups may be involved in inciting angry teenagers to defy the French state. Muslim residents, who are also affected by the unrest in the poorer, neglected suburbs, say rioters' anger is more about unemployment and discrimination than religion.The government acknowledged that the grim conditions in the suburbs - chronic high unemployment, racial discrimination, miserable housing, drugs - had much to do with the discontent. Sarkozy is quite happy to play the scapgoat card--as he has done recently regarding the Roma--and until he provides actual evidence of his claims, you are simply repeating his evidence-free nonsense.

Uzi
09-06-2010, 07:36 PM
You burn a Quran, most Muslims aren't going to think to themselves, "Oh, that person burned a Quran. Well, I guess in a liberal society, it's important that the rights of someone to do something offensive be protected." They're going to think, "I can't believe this person is burning a Quran. It just goes to show how much people hate Muslims."

And this same person who thinks like this is going to differentiate between the context of when the Koran was written and society today as has been intimated in this thread? Well, which is it? Deep thinkers that can put things into historical context, or simpletons who don't understand the importance of free speech?

Magiver
09-06-2010, 08:13 PM
No. According to your link, Sarkozy was making vague claims--without providing any evidence--and the Islamic leaders issued a fatwah condemning the rioting to head off any more such silly claims. So the Union of French Islamic Organizations has a fatwasa-for-silly-claims-department? Aside from pictures of a Monty Python skit you think they issued a religious edict based on false claims? Logically the fatwa was based on the premise that Muslims were involved.

Captain Amazing
09-06-2010, 08:27 PM
And this same person who thinks like this is going to differentiate between the context of when the Koran was written and society today as has been intimated in this thread? Well, which is it? Deep thinkers that can put things into historical context, or simpletons who don't understand the importance of free speech?

Both. Neither. first of all, when people are offended, their understanding goes away and they don't always think rationally. I believe in free speech, but when I see Fred Phelps protesting, my first reaction isn't "Oh, isn't it nice he's exercising his rights." I think, "I want to see him locked up, beaten up, and suffering." It's something visceral, not logical, and it's not a failing of my intelligence. It's a failing of my temper.

Second, go to your nearest church and ask the people there if they believe in slavery. I bet almost all of them will say no, even the ones who aren't "deep thinkers", who can put the bible in "historical context". It's not because they're biblical scholars who can reconcile the bible's approval of slavery. It's because they're raised in a society that says that slavery is wrong, and they've embraced the attitudes of their society. A Muslim born and raised in this country is probably going to have the same attitudes about their holy book. And as Muslims get more and more assimilated in American society, and as more and more imams are born and raised in the US with American culture, Islam in America is going to become more and more like Christianity or Judaism in America, just like Islam in the rest of the world is influenced by the other cultures where it exists.

Magiver
09-06-2010, 08:51 PM
Both. Neither. first of all, when people are offended, their understanding goes away and they don't always think rationally. I believe in free speech, but when I see Fred Phelps protesting, my first reaction isn't "Oh, isn't it nice he's exercising his rights." I think, "I want to see him locked up, beaten up, and suffering." It's something visceral, not logical, and it's not a failing of my intelligence. It's a failing of my temper. The difference is that most people don't care what Fred Phelps does at his church. He's a monkey with a book that might as well be written in Klingon for all the good it does him. Nobody is going to riot or sentence him to death. In fact, nobody has harmed him at a funeral where he goes out of his way to emotionally yank people around.

A Muslim born and raised in this country is probably going to have the same attitudes about their holy book. And as Muslims get more and more assimilated in American society, and as more and more imams are born and raised in the US with American culture, Islam in America is going to become more and more like Christianity or Judaism in America, just like Islam in the rest of the world is influenced by the other cultures where it exists. I agree with this to most of the extent but unlike the ultra waco's of the Christian church there is more of a problem when the concept of 6 degrees of separation are applied. Like all religions, people will believe in what they choose to believe. In the case of the Ft Hood Shooter, he followed an American educated Imam overseas via the internet. In an age where ideas travel at the speed of sound, location is not the insulator it once was. I suppose that works both ways. When you look at how cell phones and the internet are used in Iran by the younger generation it is a powerful force. I suspect Kim Jong Il understands this.

tomndebb
09-06-2010, 08:58 PM
So the Union of French Islamic Organizations has a fatwasa-for-silly-claims-department? Aside from pictures of a Monty Python skit you think they issued a religious edict based on false claims? Logically the fatwa was based on the premise that Muslims were involved.No. The Union of French Islamic Organizations feels the need to defend against ridiculous charges from demogogue politicians that will result in more of the sort of harrassment that was already going on in France.
Certainly some Muslims were involved. Beyond that, many of the kids who were rioting were children of Muslims, even though they were not, themselves, observant, which put pressure on the Muslim adults to distance themselves from the lies of Sarkozy and other politicians.
I also notice that the news story dated to the second week of the riots. If the issue was so clearly "Muslim," the riots should have stopped as soon as the fatwah was issued. This did not happen, indicating that there was a clear separation between the Muslim religious leaders and the rioters, not that "Islam" was responsibe for the riots.

Magiver
09-06-2010, 09:38 PM
No. The Union of French Islamic Organizations feels the need to defend against ridiculous charges from demogogue politicians that will result in more of the sort of harrassment that was already going on in France. Your opinion on what they think doesn't match their actions. It is not logical that they would react to something they think is silly.

Revenant Threshold
09-06-2010, 09:44 PM
Why should I worry about what is in the Koran when the people in this thread can't even read what I have written and parse it correctly.

I'd tend to say that you could have the nicest possible holy book imaginable - "Free hugs and give lots of money to charity" and all that kind of thing - and people who wanted to cause violence and wanted a rationale would be perfectly able to conjure themselves up that rationale from that book.

I said the essentially the same thing part way through this thread. But it makes it easier when you know god wants you to kill others when you're doing it, doesn't it? I don't think i'm saying what you're saying. I'm saying people will read anything they want to read into something. That includes "god wants me to kill others". You could remove all mentions of god from a book, have it be simply "No killing" written thirty thousand times in a row, and people would still hold it up and say it proves god's will is to go out and murder, because, alas, that's what we do. Having a helpful book with exactly what you want to read in it does not help, because all books are that book, to the particular reader.

Revenant Threshold
09-06-2010, 09:50 PM
No. The Union of French Islamic Organizations feels the need to defend against ridiculous charges from demogogue politicians that will result in more of the sort of harrassment that was already going on in France. Your opinion on what they think doesn't match their actions. It is not logical that they would react to something they think is silly. Sure it is. It's not solely a matter of them thinking it silly, but of others thinking it silly. If someone spread around a rumour about me, which I know to be nonsense and untrue, my knowledge of that fact does not avail me if other people believe the rumour. I may well consider a rumour about me silly, but if others believe it, I am forced to take it seriously. Likewise, the Union in this case may well feel the charges are ridiculous, but if there are those who would take the charges seriously then it is perfectly reasonable for them to take a more serious view themselves.

As tomndebb suggests, if they have reason to believe the charges will result in harassment of Muslims, then the fact they think they're silly charges doesn't mean they shouldn't act.

Uzi
09-06-2010, 09:57 PM
Having a helpful book with exactly what you want to read in it does not help, because all books are that book, to the particular reader.

So, words mean nothing except what someone wants them to mean? You have never read anything that had convinced you to do a certain action or change your thinking on a particular subject?

Revenant Threshold
09-06-2010, 10:10 PM
Having a helpful book with exactly what you want to read in it does not help, because all books are that book, to the particular reader.

So, words mean nothing except what someone wants them to mean? You have never read anything that had convinced you to do a certain action or change your thinking on a particular subject? You presume that I have never wanted to change my mind on an issue, or wanted to be open to new ideas. Perhaps I was looking for my mind to be changed on an issue, and grabbed onto something I could twist to my liking.

Yes, I would argue words mean nothing except what someone wants them to mean.

tomndebb
09-06-2010, 10:59 PM
No. The Union of French Islamic Organizations feels the need to defend against ridiculous charges from demogogue politicians that will result in more of the sort of harrassment that was already going on in France. Your opinion on what they think doesn't match their actions. It is not logical that they would react to something they think is silly.Really? No U.S. justice has ever taken a stand against teaching Creationism in school? That is silly, yet the courts have ruled on it. The notion that the King James Version of the bible is, in some way, "more true" than the Douay-Reims and Douay-Challoner bibles, is silly, yet the American Catholic Bishops went so far as to found an entirely separate school system in which they could be used so as to avoid the harrassment and persecution that people inflicted on Catholic students for declining to use the KJV.
That a politician promotes a silly idea does not preclude that idea from being harmful or dangerous and the French Islamic Organizations responded to that danger.

Magiver
09-07-2010, 01:05 AM
Your opinion on what they think doesn't match their actions. It is not logical that they would react to something they think is silly.Really? No U.S. justice has ever taken a stand against teaching Creationism in school? That is silly, yet the courts have ruled on it. The notion that the King James Version of the bible is, in some way, "more true" than the Douay-Reims and Douay-Challoner bibles, is silly, yet the American Catholic Bishops went so far as to found an entirely separate school system in which they could be used so as to avoid the harrassment and persecution that people inflicted on Catholic students for declining to use the KJV.
That a politician promotes a silly idea does not preclude that idea from being harmful or dangerous and the French Islamic Organizations responded to that danger. I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. You deny the riots had any Islamic association yet I showed you that a federation of Islamic groups addressed the situation. Everything after that is pure psychic ability on your part regarding WHY they addressed the riots.

qpw3141
09-07-2010, 02:33 AM
Really? No U.S. justice has ever taken a stand against teaching Creationism in school? That is silly, yet the courts have ruled on it. The notion that the King James Version of the bible is, in some way, "more true" than the Douay-Reims and Douay-Challoner bibles, is silly, yet the American Catholic Bishops went so far as to found an entirely separate school system in which they could be used so as to avoid the harrassment and persecution that people inflicted on Catholic students for declining to use the KJV.
That a politician promotes a silly idea does not preclude that idea from being harmful or dangerous and the French Islamic Organizations responded to that danger. I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

Perhaps, in that case, it would be better to stop embarrassing yourself by posting about something of which you admit to having no idea. ;)

You deny the riots had any Islamic association yet I showed you that a federation of Islamic groups addressed the situation.

Christian, Jewish and other groups address a lot of situations, good and bad.

The problem is that you want to hold Muslims and Islam to a different standard to that which you would hold other religions or groups.

Revenant Threshold
09-07-2010, 09:06 AM
Really? No U.S. justice has ever taken a stand against teaching Creationism in school? That is silly, yet the courts have ruled on it. The notion that the King James Version of the bible is, in some way, "more true" than the Douay-Reims and Douay-Challoner bibles, is silly, yet the American Catholic Bishops went so far as to found an entirely separate school system in which they could be used so as to avoid the harrassment and persecution that people inflicted on Catholic students for declining to use the KJV.
That a politician promotes a silly idea does not preclude that idea from being harmful or dangerous and the French Islamic Organizations responded to that danger. I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. You deny the riots had any Islamic association yet I showed you that a federation of Islamic groups addressed the situation. Everything after that is pure psychic ability on your part regarding WHY they addressed the riots. If I say "I was not involved with the French riots" does that mean that they had some Revenant association?

Uzi
09-07-2010, 10:24 AM
Yes, I would argue words mean nothing except what someone wants them to mean.

Hmmm, I'd make a case that you are completely wrong and there are other books out there that will specifically tell you what words mean and that by using logic you can learn to correctly parse sentences for what the meaning of the author intended, but I'm afraid that you would just ignore it and make up whatever you'd like to hear.

I agree with tomndebb, that books should be read within the context of when they were written, who wrote it, and the intended audience at the time, but like you, I am afraid that most people just want to read things they agree with or to justify their actions and the Koran makes it easy for them to do so.

elucidator
09-07-2010, 12:56 PM
So, how come the Jews get a pass on this? Not that they don't deserve one, all the shit they've been put through. But if the issue is instructions in one's holy text to commit inhumane acts, if that is the defining point here, well, then, they have some problems as well. You got Numbers and Deuteronomy, massacres of Aramites, Bashamites, Amorites, and sundry others. And we're talking about massacres here, total wipe out. On the instructions of God Almighty.

Not just fight, or convert, or tax, but kill, wipe out, annihilate. Don't see anybody suggesting that we toss the Torah onto the fire as well. Don't see anybody suggesting we go to war with Israel, since so many of them are Jews and their holy works condone....nay, order!...massacres.

Seems a mite inconsistent. Assuming that the real issue here is the contents of holy text.

Uzi
09-07-2010, 01:44 PM
So, how come the Jews get a pass on this?

Where do you get the idea that they do? If they start showing inclinations to follow their texts as written (and the fact that I'm not familiar enough with it to say good or bad), then we should be concerned. Muslims are just in the spotlight at the moment.

elucidator
09-07-2010, 04:08 PM
My mistake, I assume that one needs a considerable depth of knowledge before one can condemn another's views and beliefs. But the people you support in this haven't the slightest idea what they are talking about, there is no real reason you should either.

CBEscapee
09-07-2010, 04:37 PM
So, when Hitler was exhorting his people to kill Jews, they really would have done so without having him say it was okay to do it first? Yuhuh.

God says so != leader says so. Nor did Hitler, as far as I'm aware, base his rantings on any book but his own.

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Adolf Hitler

Uzi
09-07-2010, 04:40 PM
As opposed to your expertise? Which is what exactly? Why should we listen to you?

elucidator
09-07-2010, 04:46 PM
Probably just a political statement, though officially he was Roman Catholic. Outside of vague romantic mythology, he was a man with no discernible spiritual dimension whatsoever. He didn't want to exterminate the Jews because of some religious bigotry, he thought it was a practical and scientific fact that Jewish blood polluted and degraded humanity.

One does not necessarily need a religious motivation to commit unspeakable evil. (See Stalin, Joey)

elucidator
09-07-2010, 04:51 PM
As opposed to your expertise? Which is what exactly? Why should we listen to you?

It appears that I know more about comparative religion that you do. How's that for a start?

As well, I am very biased against demonstrations that have a high probability to provoke the death of innocent people. Of course, if you don't agree, no explanation is possible. Its a given, or it isn't.

Uzi
09-07-2010, 04:53 PM
One does not necessarily need a religious motivation to commit unspeakable evil. (See Stalin, Joey)

Definitely not. People do horrible things for all sorts of reasons. But, I wonder why it is so hard for people to accept that they'll do it because god told them through his holy book and that they might be right (according to the book) in so doing.

Uzi
09-07-2010, 05:03 PM
It appears that I know more about comparative religion that you do. How's that for a start?

Apparently not if you don't think that people act upon what they read in their particular holy book.

As well, I am very biased against demonstrations that have a high probability to provoke the death of innocent people.

Are you worried about what will happen if the fire gets out of control? Then what is to worry about? Why would anyone get killed because a very small number of people who no one ever heard of before in some inbred town exercised their right to free speech?

Of course, if you don't agree, no explanation is possible. Its a given, or it isn't.

I agree that the right to free speech trumps someone's desire to be offended.

elucidator
09-07-2010, 05:30 PM
...Apparently not if you don't think that people act upon what they read in their particular holy book...
Sure they do! They act upon those passages which confirm what they already believe, and ignore the rest. As has already been exhaustively pointed out to you, the Koran also contains passages that demand that the pious Muslim respect and revere the Hebrew and Christian traditions as worthy forbears. It also contains such passages as you have seized upon as definitive.

Christian Bible is chock-a-block with such contradictions, including three entirely contradictory stories about Jesus' last few moments, one of which invites the interpretation that he died an atheist.

Jesus enjoined his followers to sell what they owned, and give it to the poor. If this has become a standard behavior amongst professed Christians, it is certainly news to me.

...Are you worried about what will happen if the fire gets out of control? Then what is to worry about? Why would anyone get killed because a very small number of people who no one ever heard of before in some inbred town exercised their right to free speech?....
You don't know? Seriously? How many people had heard of Sarajevo before some inbred idiot got shot there?

...I agree that the right to free speech trumps someone's desire to be offended.

As do I, I am First Amendment fanatic, and I wouldn't dream of infringing on the right of my fellow citizens to do something incredibly stupid and hateful. That was never at issue.

Monty
09-07-2010, 06:17 PM
As opposed to your expertise? Which is what exactly? Why should we listen to you?

Good question. Let's apply it to you and a couple of others. Why should we listen to you, Magiver, and Don? You guys have more than proven that you're no expert on Islam and Muslims.

elucidator
09-07-2010, 06:20 PM
You are aware that nominations for SDMB Understatement of the Year Award are closed?

tomndebb
09-07-2010, 06:24 PM
I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. You deny the riots had any Islamic association yet I showed you that a federation of Islamic groups addressed the situation. Everything after that is pure psychic ability on your part regarding WHY they addressed the riots.You claim that Islam is, in some odd fashion, responsible for the riots. I have noted that there was a lot of silly blaming of "Muslims," but that the causes had nothing to do with the religion, itself. The Islamic Association, responding to the sort of nonsense criticism that you have employed, in this case including vague insinuations by Sarkozy, tried to dampen the the criticism by issuing a fatwah ordering any Muslim to desist. Of course, since the rioting kids often had Muslim parents, but were not, themselves, actually practicing Muslims, the fatwah had no effect. The only "Muslim" connection to the rioting was that the kids perceived that the police regarded them as Muslims and harrassed them on that point, even though the kids could not care less about Mohammed, Allah, the Pillars, or anything else regarding Islam.

You are the "psychic" one, trying to insist on a "Muslim" link that you have not even tried to define and for which there was ample tesitmony at the time, (reinforced by Kobal2's testimony and your own link), that Islam was not a cause of the rioting, except as it was an excuse for the authorities to harrass poor, mostly immigrant kids.

Uzi
09-07-2010, 06:43 PM
Monty,
I am quite willing to say that I'm not an expert, but have quite a bit of experience in the Middle East working and living with Muslims. At least when I interpret people's actions I can do so using the filter of their culture and somewhat bypassing my own. People never having left their country and basing everything they know upon the interactions with people of foreign cultures in their own country, or from just short stints abroad, have a much harder time doing so.

I have yet to see anyone disprove my assertions in this thread be they expert or not, though.
1. All religious texts are not created equal: The Koran is particularly odious.
2. People act upon those texts because they have the authority of god backing them.
3. The texts can stand on their own and be interpreted impartially. Using arguments that the majority of people ignore the bad parts doesn't mean that they aren't there or can't be used by a minority as originally intended by the author. And given the cult like conditioning that Islam imparts upon its adherents, especially in developing countries, it is not surprising that the minority of nutters is quite a bit larger than the equivalent comparatively sized religions.

Monty
09-07-2010, 06:51 PM
Oh, sorry. I thought this was Great Debates where we didn't pull assertions out of thin air.

Fear Itself
09-07-2010, 07:29 PM
I have yet to see anyone disprove my assertions in this thread be they expert or not, though.You are new here, aren't you?

elucidator
09-07-2010, 07:59 PM
Its precisely because they are assertions, they are not testable. They rest solely on the authority of yourself. Nothing wrong with that, as such. But if this thing goes forward, and nobody dies as a direct or indirect result, that will be a friggin' miracle. And I've seen damned few of those. YMMV.

tomndebb
09-07-2010, 08:10 PM
I have yet to see anyone disprove my assertions in this thread be they expert or not, though.
1. All religious texts are not created equal: The Koran is particularly odious.
2. People act upon those texts because they have the authority of god backing them.
3. The texts can stand on their own and be interpreted impartially. Using arguments that the majority of people ignore the bad parts doesn't mean that they aren't there or can't be used by a minority as originally intended by the author. And given the cult like conditioning that Islam imparts upon its adherents, especially in developing countries, it is not surprising that the minority of nutters is quite a bit larger than the equivalent comparatively sized religions.Since you are unwilling to consider facts, you will not find any statement to persuade you that your ideas are false.

1.
It is probably true that all religious texts are not created equal.
Your assertion that the Qur'an is particularly odious is based on your acceptance of other people's cherry picking of verses out of context. Therefore, your claim is unpersuasive, whether you think it has been "disproven" or not.

2.
That is probably true, if a bit tautological.

3.
Your claim that the verses that you have cherry picked are being used "as originally intended by the author" is false. Given the error of this statement, you are simply left with the fact that some nutter can use pretty much any text to rationalize any behavior. (See the U.S. Constitution and the Posse Comitatus loons for good examples.)
Islam probably does need to go through a period similar to the European Enlightenment, but it is hardly "cult like" (except as used as a pejorative by people who understand neither Islam nor cults).
The number of "nutters" associated with it probably has far more to do with the fact that the countries that were subjected to the most Western interference most recently during the Cold War happened to be primarily Muslim. When the Cold War collapsed, (and anti-Islamic governments fell), the "nutters" had a chance to flex their muscles.

Uzi
09-07-2010, 08:19 PM
Oh, sorry. I thought this was Great Debates where we didn't pull assertions out of thin air.

I'm sorry, to which side of this debate are you referring to? Because I haven't seen any more compelling evidence from the other side other than to ignore what is plainly printed in the Koran itself and the Hadiths that support it.

Uzi
09-07-2010, 08:39 PM
Your assertion that the Qur'an is particularly odious is based on your acceptance of other people's cherry picking of verses out of context. Therefore, your claim is unpersuasive, whether you think it has been "disproven" or not.

You have yet to prove that the context actually matters to those who interpret the book in question, or that the lesson only applies to that particular era or situation.

3.
Your claim that the verses that you have cherry picked are being used "as originally intended by the author" is false.

As they are being used by the fundamentalists as the author used them, eg: to fight the unbeliever, then on what basis are they not being used as the author (assuming Muhammad) intended? What do you think Muhammad meant when he said to fight them? The book isn't intended as a history, it is intended as a guide for Muslims.

Islam probably does need to go through a period similar to the European Enlightenment, but it is hardly "cult like" (except as used as a pejorative by people who understand neither Islam nor cults).

Agree with the first part, but I've seen what happens during Ramadan in a country that devoutly practices their religion. If it isn't a cult it certainly has some of the attributes. I don't see how it is much different than Scientology. A charismatic leader, isolation from friends and family if you leave with threat of death, constant imprinting of the message, sleep deprivation, water and food deprivation. If this religion was invented last year with only a few converts would you be arguing or agreeing with me?

Paul in Qatar
09-07-2010, 08:50 PM
Gee I wonder if anyone I know is going to die because of this asshat in Florida.

Ají de Gallina
09-07-2010, 09:17 PM
How many car bombs and suicide attacks does it take for one group's feelings to be taken into consideration?
sorry, we wouldn't be having this discussion if they were burning Seychelles' flags or Peruvian constitutions; nobody would worry about that.

Fear Itself
09-07-2010, 10:26 PM
Anybody taking bets on how long after the Koran burning Pastor Jones' headless corpse is found in the smoking ashes of his church?

Magiver
09-07-2010, 11:35 PM
Perhaps, in that case, it would be better to stop embarrassing yourself by posting about something of which you admit to having no idea. ;)

You're just running your mouth without any supported context. I linked Islamic groups to a situation involving Muslims. There is a logical connection to this. I didn't provide a narrative on what they were feeling.

The problem is that you want to hold Muslims and Islam to a different standard to that which you would hold other religions or groups. OK, lets start with the Bali bombing example I gave which involved the killing of 200 random people. Explain how I hold Muslims to a higher standard?

Siam Sam
09-07-2010, 11:48 PM
Personally, I don't give a damn who burns what -- books, flags, whatever. Naturally they have a right to do it, although I'll agree it may not be the brightest idea this time. I wonder how many people who condemn this Saturday's proposed action have supported the right to burn flags in the past; and how many people who have condemend flag-burning support the proposed Koran torching.

Monty
09-08-2010, 12:11 AM
Oh, sorry. I thought this was Great Debates where we didn't pull assertions out of thin air.

I'm sorry, to which side of this debate are you referring to? Because I haven't seen any more compelling evidence from the other side other than to ignore what is plainly printed in the Koran itself and the Hadiths that support it.

I'm talking about you pulling stuff out of thin air. So something's printed in the Qur'an. Big deal. Lots of violent stuff is printed in the Old Testament. Yes, there are fundied out folks who hold one or the other tome to be the one and only guidebook for how to interact with other people. That does not mean that those people are the most representative of how the majority of people in a billion-member group actually believe or even act.

Sablicious
09-08-2010, 12:34 AM
Please clarify:

-If we burn Playboy will Hugh blow himself up in a crowded mall?

-If Hitler had have targeted Muslims would anyone have bothered to stop him and would we in fact be better off now?

-When Allah (peace be upon him... but not upon the infidels) is done with drowning poverty-stricken Pakistani woman and children, will he turn His attention to Qu'ran burners?

(Thanks)

elucidator
09-08-2010, 02:01 AM
Wow, those are some pretty deep questions. Maybe too deep for us, right now, we're more or less talking about whether it is stupid to poke a bear with a sharp stick or is it really, really stupid?

Kobal2
09-08-2010, 03:37 AM
I linked Islamic groups to a situation involving Muslims. There is a logical connection to this.

But it didn't, gosh dang it to heck, how many times do we have to repeat this ? There was no connection, except for a demagogue running his mouth to cater to right wing mouth breathers on his presidential bid.
You can say a lot of things about the riots and why they happened at all, but the one thing they weren't was a Muslim insurrection.

qpw3141
09-08-2010, 04:03 AM
Perhaps, in that case, it would be better to stop embarrassing yourself by posting about something of which you admit to having no idea. ;)

You're just running your mouth without any supported context.

Nope. You said you had no idea. And yet that does not stop you from pontificating. ;)

I linked Islamic groups to a situation involving Muslims. There is a logical connection to this.

Yes, but that's just your obsession with Islam.

You could link various atrocities perpetrated by anti-abortionists to Christian groups. But you don't. You just pick on Muslims.

The problem is that you want to hold Muslims and Islam to a different standard to that which you would hold other religions or groups. OK, lets start with the Bali bombing example I gave which involved the killing of 200 random people. Explain how I hold Muslims to a higher standard?[/QUOTE]

Simply by obsessing about them.

One could do something analogous to what you did there by linking the atrocities committed by the IRA to the Christian church since the IRA are 'linked' to said church.

But people don't, because they are not idiots trying to stir up hatred of an entire class of people (Christians) on the basis of the actions of some Christians.

tomndebb
09-08-2010, 07:07 AM
But people don't, because they are not idiots. . . .This is too close to linking a group of people that you are calling idiots to a specific poster on the SDMB. Back off.

[ /Moderating ]

Sablicious
09-08-2010, 07:51 AM
Wow, those are some pretty deep questions. Maybe too deep for us, right now, we're more or less talking about whether it is stupid to poke a bear with a sharp stick or is it really, really stupid?
A bear...?! :confused: Bears don't sacrifice their children because of something they read in a bark carving somewhere.

Methinks 'tugging on a rat's tail' would be a better analogy.

elucidator
09-08-2010, 10:36 AM
Actually, thats not too bad an analogy, if you think of "kids" as being our troops serving in Islamic countries. Who will be at much higher risk because of this. But bears don't do that, because bears aren't that fucking stupid.

But be careful tugging on a rat's tail, grab the wrong thing, and he'll follow you around for days.

Sandwich
09-08-2010, 11:13 AM
... As well, I am very biased against demonstrations that have a high probability to provoke the death of innocent people...

I agree. Of course, I acknowledge the connexion between Islam and terrorism. How do the people who deny the link rationalise the fear that offending moslems will lead to the deaths of innocent people?

Ají de Gallina
09-08-2010, 11:25 AM
Wow, those are some pretty deep questions. Maybe too deep for us, right now, we're more or less talking about whether it is stupid to poke a bear with a sharp stick or is it really, really stupid?

You actually make my (and other people's) point. Islam is not like any other group you might offend. They are bears not bunnies, i.e. there are enough of them ready to blow stuff up. So, you maker the point we should not be burning Qurans not out of respect, but out of fear. A fear, I might add, you would not feel for any other group in a similar circumstance.

Siam Sam
09-08-2010, 11:29 AM
Maybe the church could compromise by burning some Torahs instead.

Raygun99
09-08-2010, 11:40 AM
Maybe the church could compromise by burning some Torahs instead.

Strike Torah for Talmud, and they're doing that. (http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-miami/local-muslim-leaders-try-to-keep-tensions-down-despite-upcoming-international-burn-a-koran-day)

Really Not All That Bright
09-08-2010, 11:41 AM
... As well, I am very biased against demonstrations that have a high probability to provoke the death of innocent people...

I agree. Of course, I acknowledge the connexion between Islam and terrorism. How do the people who deny the link rationalise the fear that offending moslems will lead to the deaths of innocent people?
Speaking for myself only, my objections to this Koran-burning are purely PR and taste-based. I don't give a shit if the terrorists view the Ground Zero mosque as a victory, and I don't give a shit what they think of a Koran burning.

I do very much give a shit what ordinary Muslims think of both.

elucidator
09-08-2010, 12:20 PM
Maybe the church could compromise by burning some Torahs instead.

Strike Torah for Talmud, and they're doing that. (http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-miami/local-muslim-leaders-try-to-keep-tensions-down-despite-upcoming-international-burn-a-koran-day)

Not seeing it. No mention of Talmud or Torah that I can see. Followed the link to the Vulture Ministrys website, is it part of the video offered?

Raygun99
09-08-2010, 12:43 PM
Fifth paragraph in that story.

elucidator
09-08-2010, 01:01 PM
I see that the story says so, but I almost always click links, and that link takes me to the Vulture Ministry website, where I do not see any such thing. Its not that I doubt their bigotry and stupidity, I just think that they haven't got the guts, more likely to pick on a smaller, more helpless group. They've little to fear from American muslims, but the ladies of Hadassah would kick their asses into next week. And "Fightin' Joe" Lieberman would tear them a new one!

And if its true, I have to wonder why its not more widely known. If it were true, and widely known, a whole lot of Pubbies who are keeping a discreet reticence on this subject would reveal themselves as champions of tolerance and respect. Toot damn sweet, too!

elucidator
09-08-2010, 01:04 PM
When you go to that internet pustule, you are offered the opportunity to donate. I got to wonder how much $ they've pulled down for this vile stunt?

Actually, I don't really want to know. I'm trying to stay sane and sober, and I hate having to choose.

tomndebb
09-08-2010, 01:19 PM
“Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen.”*
- Heinrich Heine, Almansor (1821)

Quoted by several people at the time that the Nazis engaged in their May 10, 1933 burning of Jewish books in Berlin. It is now the caption for most pictures of that burning at places like Dachau and various Holocaust museums.





*“Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings.”

elucidator
09-08-2010, 01:33 PM
In reference to the Torah/Talmud burning above, the website offers an "article" expressing very strong pro-Israel sentiments.

Islam is Cursed by Cursing Israel; we are Blessed by Blessing Israel

Therein, some rather clumsy dancing around the subject of whether Jews are more acceptable infidels than Muslims. Yuck. Where is the "puking yer guts out" smiley when we need one?

Magiver
09-08-2010, 01:37 PM
Simply by obsessing about them.

I bring up 2 events and that's an obsession. Really?
This is great debates. If you want to debate that the Bali bombing that targeted Westerners had nothing to do with Islamic preaching of hatred (which I cited) then by all means, speak up.

qpw3141
09-08-2010, 01:39 PM
I bring up 2 events and that's an obsession. [/QUOTE]

You've been doing a bit more than that for a considerable amount of time. ;)

Really Not All That Bright
09-08-2010, 02:12 PM
Strike Torah for Talmud, and they're doing that. (http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-miami/local-muslim-leaders-try-to-keep-tensions-down-despite-upcoming-international-burn-a-koran-day)

Not seeing it. No mention of Talmud or Torah that I can see. Followed the link to the Vulture Ministrys website, is it part of the video offered?
From the article:
The Dove World Outreach Center also plans to burn copies of the Talmud (a sacred Jewish text) as well. The church has lost half of its members who don't agree with what they're doing.

Steve MB
09-08-2010, 03:08 PM
And he later apologized for it (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9047102/#slice-2). It was a short lived jihad on his part.

Which proves the point -- he's no better than his opposite numbers in the Islamic world; he is just prevented from acting on his impulses and to (imperfectly) hide them because the rise of secularism in the West has denied him the political power enjoyed by said opposite numbers.

Damuri Ajashi
09-08-2010, 03:11 PM
You act as if that happened yesterday rather than 500+ years ago.

It doesn't matter when. You implied that Islam was a violent religion that their' "religion of peace" rhetoric actually meant that there woudl be peace when everyone was muslim or dead. I was just pointing out that the same could be said for other religions.

Re. The Crusades: Who do you think the Muslims got that land from in the first place? It wasn't ALL peacefully. But the point being, Jesus probably wouldn't have condoned those actions whereas Muhammad probably would have.

And you think Muhammed would have condoned 9/11, suicide bombing innocent folks at the Jerusalem starbucks? Much of the Christian Kingdom was converted at the edge of a sword as well, Jesus might not have condoned it but frankly much of the rationale behind burning a Quran today would apply to burning a bible 500 years ago.

I don't condone what is going on in the radical muslim community but I don't think i would pblame the religion any more than I would blame Christianity for pro-life murderers (but I would certainly blame some purported Muslims and Christians).

XT
09-08-2010, 03:12 PM
Haven't really kept up with the thread since it's sort of wandered off the original course of the OP, but I was reading this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100908/pl_yblog_upshot/even-pastors-old-church-condemns-quran-burning) article and figured I'd toss it in:


Even pastor’s old church condemns Quran-burning

It's increasingly looking as though the only spiritual or political figure who will not denounce Florida pastor Terry Jones' plan to commemorate Sept. 11 by burning copies of the Quran is Jones himself. Wednesday brings the news that even the church Jones founded in Germany in the 1980s is condemning the upcoming Quran-burning at his small place of worship in Gainesville, Fla.

"We are surprised and shocked at the extreme radicalism being displayed [by Jones] right now on this issue," Stephan Baar of the Christian Community of Cologne told the Associated Press. The 60-member church kicked out Jones in 2008. Jones' estranged daughter says the eviction arose from her father's reported penchant for dipping into the church's till to pay his own expenses.


Here's a partial list of people who have condemned the planned bonfire:

* "It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort," top commander in Afghanistan Gen. David Petraeus told the media. "It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems.

* As "an act of patriotism," the media should not cover the burning, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said. She also said, "It's regrettable that a pastor in Gainesville, Florida, with a church of no more than 50 people can make this outrageous and distressful, disgraceful plan, and get the world's attention":

* The terrorist attacks of 9/11, says the Vatican, "cannot be counteracted by an outrageous and grave gesture against a book considered sacred by a religious community."

* Attorney General Eric Holder called the plan "idiotic and dangerous."

* "I do not think well of the idea of burning anybody's Koran, Bible, Book of Mormon or anything else," Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour told reporters. "I don't think there is any excuse for it. I don't think it's a good idea."

* "Any type of activity like that that puts our troops in harm's way would be a concern," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Tuesday.

* "I appeal to people who are planning to burn the Quran to reconsider and drop their plans because they are inconsistent with American values and, as General Petraeus has warned, threatening to America's military," Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman said in a statement.

* House Minority Leader John Boehner reluctantly spoke out against the event, comparing it to the planned Islamic center near Ground Zero. "Well, listen, I just think it's not wise to do this in the face of what our country represents. ... Just because you have the right to do something in America, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do."

* New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg called it "boneheaded and wrong" but said the protesters are protected by the First Amendment. "He has a right to do it," he said.

* Actress Angelina Jolie spoke out against the plan while visiting Pakistan to raise awareness about the devastating floods. "I have hardly the words that somebody would do that to somebody's religious book," she said:


-XT

Damuri Ajashi
09-08-2010, 03:13 PM
Not really, no. Both of them are long dead, and both of them are historical yet have quite a bit of fictional/mythical dimension tacked on long after they died and couldn't object anymore.

Did Jesus ever say to kill anyone? Did Mohammad? I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't and Mohammad did. There is no tacking on of facts that Mohammad butchered people and said god condoned the acts.

Yeah there are at least a couple of palces where Jesus talks about killing folks and lets not forget the much larger and more often cited (these days) Old Testament, which condoned all sorts of killing and maiming and other horrible shit.

Steve MB
09-08-2010, 03:19 PM
As to the "brutal" tax, it is true that Muslims were exempted from part of the taxes, but the actual records indicate that the taxes levied were no more harsh than the taxes levied by the Christain monarchs that had been overthrown. (In fact, while I do not know the specifics of the Iberian taxes, in the East, the Muslim taxes were actually lower than the Byzantine taxes they replaced.)

One reason the Arabs were able to conquer the southern provinces of the Byzantine Empire so easily was that the Arabs were willing to let the locals practice whatever kind of Christianity they liked as long as they paid their taxes, while the Empire kept trying to suppress the Monophysite heretics.

Dob
09-08-2010, 03:20 PM
I'm torn on this whole issue. On one hand the pastor is correct.. when does it stop? When do we stop worrying what terroists think? After 9/11 Bush came out and said to keep doing what we do.. shop, go to movies, etc... but the gist of it was to not let the terroists win. Now 9yrs later we care what they think again??

Of course when our top general comes out and tells you that you are endangering lives how can you continue in good faith? I mean, when does any general ever come out and speak on a domestic issue like this?? I dont think he said it for the sound bite!

Damuri Ajashi
09-08-2010, 03:21 PM
Do you just want New Testament or are you open to Old Testament since Jesus is God?

You do realize that Islam acknowledges the old testament, right? Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_the_Bible). So, whatever happened before either prophet pretty much equals out and they should be evaluated on their words alone, not what happened before.

So is the New Testament so what? Christianity is the whole of the belief not just the part that is convenient for the current argument.

Damuri Ajashi
09-08-2010, 03:22 PM
Possibly the reason that Islam never outgrew it's violent past is that it's progenitor was a warrior who codified a strict enforcement of the rules whereas Christianity advanced beyond the old testament's brutality and focused on the new testament's non-violent prophet.

The idea that its a few extremists doesn't add up when you start to look at the size of organization such as Hamas, Hezbolla, the Taliban and a plethora of other groups committed to an extremely harsh interpretation of the religion. For that matter, there are entire countries that subscribe to the mentality of Hamas.

Or it could be socio-economic factors, not getting in on the New World action, endemic poverty, living in a damn sand bucket, colonization and de-colonization, intermittent meddling by the Western powers backing up this or that petty tyrant...

And the West became more open and enlightened because humanist philosophers clashed against religion and broke its yoke on society, because two World Wars liberated women, because hippies fucked in the mud and because scientists defied Church interdicts in secrecy. It has nothing to do with the benevolent guiding light of Christianity or any sort of religion whatsoever.

People don't go to religion to find a way to act, they act some way and then make religion say it's OK. It's what happened in the Crusades, it's what happened during the Catholic/Protestant wars, it's what happens with the Taliban, and it's what happens with that stupid book burning.

@Uzi : "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.", Matthew 10:34. And FWIW, while I'm no Koran scholar, I believe most of the fire and brimstone in it is in the form of "Allah will deal with them" rather than "go and kill 'em".

Then what is it about the muslim countries taht produce so much mroe unrest and terrorism compared to other countries taht have suffered just as much if not more indignity at the hands of the white satan?

XT
09-08-2010, 03:26 PM
I'm torn on this whole issue. On one hand the pastor is correct.. when does it stop? When do we stop worrying what terroists think? After 9/11 Bush came out and said to keep doing what we do.. shop, go to movies, etc... but the gist of it was to not let the terroists win. Now 9yrs later we care what they think again??

I think the difference is between doing something you've always done and doing something to be deliberately provocative, to deliberately insult people and rub their faces in it. For instance, I'm all for the comic's that make fun of Islam and Mohammad (just like I love the South Park episodes that makes fun of Jesus and other religious leaders). If people want to take offense at that, if they want to lash out at 'us' because of something like that, well, then I say let them do their worst...we shouldn't bend one iota on freedom of speech, and if folks have to die because of it then they do. But burning books? Burning some other groups holy books? Even though I think that holy books are complete nonsense, that's deliberate provocation, and not freedom of speech...IMHO at any rate.

-XT

Dob
09-08-2010, 03:36 PM
hmm... XT you make a good point! Now im thinking the pastor is just a douche.

tomndebb
09-08-2010, 03:37 PM
I'm torn on this whole issue. On one hand the pastor is correct.. when does it stop? When do we stop worrying what terroists think? After 9/11 Bush came out and said to keep doing what we do.. shop, go to movies, etc... but the gist of it was to not let the terroists win. Now 9yrs later we care what they think again?? Burning Qur'ans does not involve just the terrorists. It offends Muslims who have worked with us to stop the terrorists and it gives the terrorists fodder to recruit new young volunteers.

tomndebb
09-08-2010, 03:55 PM
Then what is it about the muslim countries taht produce so much mroe unrest and terrorism compared to other countries taht have suffered just as much if not more indignity at the hands of the white satan?You mean such peaceful countries as Sri Lanka, Bolivia, Mexico, Zimbabwe, Serbia (attacking the rest of the former Yugoslavia), Congo, and the other various peaceful lands that simply do not get included in a list of "violent" Muslim places because they happen to not be a source of Muslim violence? (To that can be added Peru and Chile and Argentina that are relatively peaceful, now, but that have very violent recent histories.)

Indonesia, Iran, Philipines, Chechnya, and a few other places were the sites of the active suppression of Islam, which puts their anger into a specific context. Many of the Arab states are run by the corrupt guys that made the best deals with the oil companies and are now facing hostility from their fellow countrymen--often led by the more Puritanical Muslim religious leaders on an anti-corruption platform. Mao was able to consolidate power in China over fifty years ago while the European nations still had more control over the now independent Muslim countries, but China was quite violent, even through the 1970s.

Damuri Ajashi
09-08-2010, 03:59 PM
Yes, Muslims live in peace with people of other faiths, but usually when they are the minority and have little choice in the matter. Otherwise, when Muslims are the majority you usually have some form of Sharia as the basis for the law and all sorts of nuttiness derived because of it.Indonesia is the world's most populous Muslim-majority nation with 86% of the population reportedly Muslim. A quick glance at the Wiki says "Although religious freedom is stipulated in the Indonesian constitution, the government officially recognizes only six religions: Islam, Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism." That's not complete religious freedom but it's not the "nuttiness" we associate with Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East (which is as much socio-political as it is religious) either. It does kind of suck if you're Jewish though.

Is that an oversight or is it more recent solidarity with the Palestinians?

elucidator
09-08-2010, 04:07 PM
If this provokes some unfortunate Muslim reactions, that would be bad, of course, Luckily, we don't have a political party so craven and unprincipled as to exploit such a tragedy.

Oh, wait....

Right Wing Leaders Plan To Use September 11th Anniversary To Make Money

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/08/sept-11-profiteer/

Damuri Ajashi
09-08-2010, 05:30 PM
Then what is it about the muslim countries taht produce so much mroe unrest and terrorism compared to other countries taht have suffered just as much if not more indignity at the hands of the white satan?You mean such peaceful countries as Sri Lanka, Bolivia, Mexico, Zimbabwe, Serbia (attacking the rest of the former Yugoslavia), Congo, and the other various peaceful lands that simply do not get included in a list of "violent" Muslim places because they happen to not be a source of Muslim violence? (To that can be added Peru and Chile and Argentina that are relatively peaceful, now, but that have very violent recent histories.)

Indonesia, Iran, Philipines, Chechnya, and a few other places were the sites of the active suppression of Islam, which puts their anger into a specific context. Many of the Arab states are run by the corrupt guys that made the best deals with the oil companies and are now facing hostility from their fellow countrymen--often led by the more Puritanical Muslim religious leaders on an anti-corruption platform. Mao was able to consolidate power in China over fifty years ago while the European nations still had more control over the now independent Muslim countries, but China was quite violent, even through the 1970s.

I am not faimilar with the terrorism being exported from Sri Lanka and Serbia but I get the impression that muslim nations (especially middle eastern muslim nations produce MUCH more than their fair share of terrorism. Maybe its just the liberal media giving me that impression.

Clothahump
09-08-2010, 05:35 PM
Burning books in the US...'Burn Quran Day'

You know...I understand the sentiment behind this. There's part of me that wants to pitch a book on the fire.

But I think it's a bad thing to do in the long run. Actions like that will only strengthen the resolve of the religious whackjobs in the middle east. I'd be willing to bet that if they burn the Korans on 9/11, there's gonna be a rash of bombings on 9/12 and American troops are gonna die.

Magiver
09-08-2010, 05:47 PM
Burning books in the US...'Burn Quran Day'

You know...I understand the sentiment behind this. There's part of me that wants to pitch a book on the fire.

But I think it's a bad thing to do in the long run. Actions like that will only strengthen the resolve of the religious whackjobs in the middle east. I'd be willing to bet that if they burn the Korans on 9/11, there's gonna be a rash of bombings on 9/12 and American troops are gonna die. I think the minister is trolling for attention for his fledgling 50 head congregation. He will be cleaning up burned bibles on church property until Jesus stops by on his next visit (which will be his own doing).

However, I was dumbfounded to see a news report that the fire department declared ALL books off limits because the INK was a hazard. I see a huge Fred Phelps style lawsuit when they attempt to intervene.

Ají de Gallina
09-08-2010, 06:04 PM
Burning Qur'ans does not involve just the terrorists. It offends Muslims who have worked with us to stop the terrorists and it gives the terrorists fodder to recruit new young volunteers.

We fake respect but it's actually fear? It proves that you need a couple of bombing and people will respect you.

The burning is a bullshit action by a bullshit guy, but it has revealed the fear that Islam has instilled in a great many hearts.

Captain Amazing
09-08-2010, 06:10 PM
Burning Qur'ans does not involve just the terrorists. It offends Muslims who have worked with us to stop the terrorists and it gives the terrorists fodder to recruit new young volunteers.

We fake respect but it's actually fear? It proves that you need a couple of bombing and people will respect you.

The burning is a bullshit action by a bullshit guy, but it has revealed the fear that Islam has instilled in a great many hearts.

Don't you think people would have the same reaction if people wanted to burn bibles?

elucidator
09-08-2010, 06:33 PM
Fear? Well, its true I sure wouldn't want to lose a war with Islam. But not at all interested in winning one, either. Only thing worse than war is needless war.

Uzi
09-08-2010, 06:41 PM
Don't you think people would have the same reaction if people wanted to burn bibles?

You're joking, right?

Muhammed cartoons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_cartoons): 100's dead. Riots all over the place. Boycotts.

Piss Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ): A few death threats and hate mail and someone attempted to smash the exhibit with a hammer. Oh, and the artist lost his grants.

Come on, really?

Revenant Threshold
09-08-2010, 06:48 PM
Yes, I would argue words mean nothing except what someone wants them to mean.

Hmmm, I'd make a case that you are completely wrong and there are other books out there that will specifically tell you what words mean and that by using logic you can learn to correctly parse sentences for what the meaning of the author intended, but I'm afraid that you would just ignore it and make up whatever you'd like to hear. It seems illogical to accept my argument in order to poison the well, but reject it generally. I mean, fair play to you - I can't now disagree without you being able to claim that i'm merely ignoring your words.

Anyway, yes, there are books that will tell you what words mean. Unfortunetly, they tend to be written in words also, which just ends up moving the problem up a level. No, using logic you may not learn to correctly parse sentences for what the meaning of the author in intended, at least not infallibly, because there is potential for error at both ends of the process. You may misuse logic, and the author may have misused words in explaining his meaning.I agree with tomndebb, that books should be read within the context of when they were written, who wrote it, and the intended audience at the time, but like you, I am afraid that most people just want to read things they agree with or to justify their actions and the Koran makes it easy for them to do so. Any book can be used to justify whatever you desire. The Koran is no easier or harder than any other text to justify from. Simple words, as compared to the magnificience that is the convinced brain, don't really have much chance to play a part.

tomndebb
09-08-2010, 07:10 PM
We fake respect but it's actually fear? It proves that you need a couple of bombing and people will respect you.

The burning is a bullshit action by a bullshit guy, but it has revealed the fear that Islam has instilled in a great many hearts.To the extent that some people need to be threatened in order to demonstrate respect, (at least respect of power), I suppose you are right. I have never felt any particular fear of Muslims and I tend to respect other persons, regardless of their beliefs.

Of course, there has been a demonstration of fear, recently, with people claiming that we ought to prevent a handful of peaceful Sufis from building a community center in Manhattan because it would, in some odd way, show the "wrong message" that folks in the U.S. can actually tolerate diversity.

elucidator
09-08-2010, 07:16 PM
Just heard about this on KO. Found the link.

http://www.myeyewitnessnews.com/news/local/story/Memphis-Area-Muslims-Worshiping-At-Christian/F5CZgzul4EegYgk_L9evNg.cspx

Memphis Area Muslims Worshiping At Christian Church During Ramadan

...Steve Stone is Pastor of Heartsong Church, located right across the street. “This place doesn’t belong to us, it’s God’s place and we’re just sharing it.” Stone and his congregation have decided to share it with the Muslim Islamic Center....

USA! Fuck, yeah!

Uzi
09-08-2010, 07:41 PM
Any book can be used to justify whatever you desire. The Koran is no easier or harder than any other text to justify from. Simple words, as compared to the magnificience that is the convinced brain, don't really have much chance to play a part.

'god commands you to hate x'
'god commands you to love x'

Can you pick the one that makes it easier for a person to love x and the one that makes it easier for them to hate x? Which one makes it harder to love x and which makes it easier to hate x? Assuming that anyone actually cares what god commands, that is.

Or, are you going to stick with your contention that they are the same statement and can be used as anyone sees fit to achieve whatever result they want?

Revenant Threshold
09-08-2010, 07:48 PM
Any book can be used to justify whatever you desire. The Koran is no easier or harder than any other text to justify from. Simple words, as compared to the magnificience that is the convinced brain, don't really have much chance to play a part.

'god commands you to hate x'
'god commands you to love x'

Can you pick the one that makes it easier for a person to love x and the one that makes it easier for them to hate x? Which one makes it harder to love x and which makes it easier to hate x? Assuming that anyone actually cares what god commands, that is.

Or, are you going to stick with your contention that they are the same statement and can be used as anyone sees fit to achieve whatever result they want? It is not my contention that they are the same statement; they have different words, obviously. The second part is right; it is my contention that they are, effectively, the same statement in terms of what meaning people may draw from them. To put it in those terms, a person who is convinced that god wishes them to hate x will, in general, be quite able to draw equal supportive meaning from each of those sentences.

Captain Amazing
09-08-2010, 08:05 PM
Don't you think people would have the same reaction if people wanted to burn bibles?

You're joking, right?

Muhammed cartoons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_cartoons): 100's dead. Riots all over the place. Boycotts.


In places like Syria, Iran, Afghanistan and Libya, sure, but those are violent countries with a bunch of Muslim fundamentalists anyway There wasn't any rioting or violence by American Muslims, and there wasn't even much violence by Muslims in Denmark, and the Muslims who did provoke violence in Denmark were all recent immigrants from other countries....a few Tunisians, an Algerian, and a Somali.

Uzi
09-08-2010, 08:39 PM
To put it in those terms, a person who is convinced that god wishes them to hate x will, in general, be quite able to draw equal supportive meaning from each of those sentences.

I agree with that. It doesn't make them right, though. The text can stand alone and have meaning regardless of how some people want to interpret them.

All I'm saying is that it is easier to get to C if you don't have to start from A.
Love->Hate->Kill

Uzi
09-08-2010, 08:41 PM
In places like Syria, Iran, Afghanistan and Libya, sure, but those are violent countries with a bunch of Muslim fundamentalists anyway

I wasn't under the impression that we were limiting our discussion to NA. If we did I'd agree with you.

Ají de Gallina
09-08-2010, 09:00 PM
Don't you think people would have the same reaction if people wanted to burn bibles?

If you mean car-bombs and suicide bombers, no.

Fear? Well, its true I sure wouldn't want to lose a war with Islam. But not at all interested in winning one, either. Only thing worse than war is needless war.

Thanks.

To the extent that some people need to be threatened in order to demonstrate respect, (at least respect of power), I suppose you are right. I have never felt any particular fear of Muslims and I tend to respect other persons, regardless of their beliefs.

Of course, there has been a demonstration of fear, recently, with people claiming that we ought to prevent a handful of peaceful Sufis from building a community center in Manhattan because it would, in some odd way, show the "wrong message" that folks in the U.S. can actually tolerate diversity.

But this whole thread is about "burn Qurans = people die". The badly-called "Ground-zero mosque" will result in little more than insulting emails. Big difference.

tomndebb
09-08-2010, 09:35 PM
But this whole thread is about "burn Qurans = people die". The badly-called "Ground-zero mosque" will result in little more than insulting emails. Big difference.You haven't been paying attention to the mosque threads. There have been numerous claims that "allowing" the community center will be seen as a "victory" that will encourage the extremists to commit more atrocities.
(And, of course, there have already been several acts of violence against mosques since the lies began to be spread about the community center.)

Captain Amazing
09-08-2010, 09:43 PM
Don't you think people would have the same reaction if people wanted to burn bibles?

If you mean car-bombs and suicide bombers, no.

As a rule, American Muslims don't get involved in car bombs and suicide bombers either.

Triskadecamus
09-08-2010, 09:46 PM
The thing is, way more folks than I would wish for think either "Yeah, man, burn the Koran, it's a good thing to do", or "No, the Government should stop them from doing that." Sadly, very few of the folks who think either of those things see that they have already abandoned the whole point of our society. If I thought burning bibles in protest would enlighten any of them, I would do it, and I am a very comitted Christian. The book is just a book. It's the willingness to live in your faith that matters, both your civil faith in our belief that free speech is fundamental to Democracy, and your faith that freedom of religion doesn't mean Freedom of My Religion.

So much easier to just hate someone when your turn comes.

Tris

Captain Amazing
09-08-2010, 09:53 PM
In places like Syria, Iran, Afghanistan and Libya, sure, but those are violent countries with a bunch of Muslim fundamentalists anyway

I wasn't under the impression that we were limiting our discussion to NA. If we did I'd agree with you.

You have to, though, because otherwise, you're not comparing Christians to Muslims. You're comparing Christians in rich, post industrial, egalitarian, tolerant liberal democracies like the US and Europe to Muslims in postcolonial, socially stratified, intolerant, illiberal dictatorships like Libya or Iran.

You need to compare like to like, so if you want to suggest that there's something about Islam or the Quran that makes Muslims violent and intolerant, you need to compare American Muslims to American Christians, or Lebanese Muslims to Lebanese Christians, or whatever, because otherwise, you're introducing all these other factors that have nothing to do with Islam or the Quran.

Uzi
09-08-2010, 10:04 PM
You have to, though, because otherwise, you're not comparing Christians to Muslims. You're comparing Christians in rich, post industrial, egalitarian, tolerant liberal democracies like the US and Europe to Muslims in postcolonial, socially stratified, intolerant, illiberal dictatorships like Libya or Iran.


But that is where most Muslims live. Coincidence? Best left for another thread I think.

Captain Amazing
09-08-2010, 10:53 PM
But that is where most Muslims live. Coincidence? Best left for another thread I think.

That's where most people live.

elucidator
09-08-2010, 11:19 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population

...Around 62% of the world's Muslims live in Asia, with over 683 million adherents in such countries as Indonesia (the largest Muslim country by population, home to 15.6% of the world's Muslims[8]), Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh (all three being successor states to the former British Raj).[2][9] About 20% of Muslims live in Arab countries.[10] In the Middle East, the non-Arab countries of Turkey and Iran are the largest Muslim-majority countries; in Africa, Egypt and Nigeria have the most populous Muslim communities....

Offered without comment

Siam Sam
09-08-2010, 11:32 PM
Maybe the church could compromise by burning some Torahs instead.

Strike Torah for Talmud, and they're doing that. (http://www.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-miami/local-muslim-leaders-try-to-keep-tensions-down-despite-upcoming-international-burn-a-koran-day)

Well good, because it's common knowledge that Jews in New York all received phone calls warning them to stay away from the World Trade Center on that day, which is why no Jews were killed. Obviously they were behind it.

(That statement makes about as much sense as blaming Islam, so the church in Florida could go for that and save face without having to back down.)

elucidator
09-09-2010, 12:11 AM
The article says that, but the website linked to says nothing of the sort.

Magiver
09-09-2010, 12:20 AM
It is not my contention that they are the same statement; they have different words, obviously. The second part is right; it is my contention that they are, effectively, the same statement in terms of what meaning people may draw from them. To put it in those terms, a person who is convinced that god wishes them to hate x will, in general, be quite able to draw equal supportive meaning from each of those sentences. How do you think the follower of a prophet who willingly died in an act of total sacrifice is viewed in comparison to a warrior prophet who codifies strict adherence to laws he set down?

Put another way, which one creates an atmosphere more conducive to violence given that all religions have followers of varying degrees of intensity.

elucidator
09-09-2010, 12:49 AM
So, Muslims are a violent, irrational and unstable people. Which is why its a good idea to pee in their Cheerios. What could possibly go wrong?

SanVito
09-09-2010, 02:16 AM
C'mon. Neither of you is seriously gonna argue the protests I'm referencing didn't happen. I googled "muslim cartoon protests" and that was one of the hits. I do not know when or where the picture was taken. I do not know if the picture was for those protests, or other ones. I do know, and so do you, that muslims often protest in revoltingly large numbers whenever somebody gores one of their sacred cows. They march, they chant death to America, and they call for any that insult Islam to be put to death.

Haven't been able to wade through this entire thread but just wanted to point to the source of this photo - London, 2006, and 4 men were jailed for it (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6904622.stm). So, I don't think Oakminster needs to fret unduly about them taking over the west just yet.

jtgain
09-09-2010, 06:13 AM
I've never understood this whole idea of demanding "respect" between religions.

I agree that this guy is a world-class douche, but where does the outrage come from because of the burning of the Koran? These people, and many other Christians, believe that Muslims will die, go to hell, and be tortured for ALL OF ETERNITY.

That belief gets a meh, but burning a holy book sparks outrage.

I guess it's early and I'm not articulating well, but how can the Pope speak out against this when he is in favor of eternal torture for all Muslims? Eternal torture for Protestants, for that matter.

Which is worse, burning a copy of the Koran, or eternally burning all of its followers in Hell?

tomndebb
09-09-2010, 06:33 AM
I guess it's early and I'm not articulating well, but how can the Pope speak out against this when he is in favor of eternal torture for all Muslims? Eternal torture for Protestants, for that matter.Well, since the RCC does not teach anything resembling the idea that Muslims or Protestants are damned just by not being Catholic, your straw man argument is a bit irrelevant.

Baboonanza
09-09-2010, 07:01 AM
I've never understood this whole idea of demanding "respect" between religions.

I agree that this guy is a world-class douche, but where does the outrage come from because of the burning of the Koran? These people, and many other Christians, believe that Muslims will die, go to hell, and be tortured for ALL OF ETERNITY.

That belief gets a meh, but burning a holy book sparks outrage.

I guess it's early and I'm not articulating well, but how can the Pope speak out against this when he is in favor of eternal torture for all Muslims? Eternal torture for Protestants, for that matter.

Which is worse, burning a copy of the Koran, or eternally burning all of its followers in Hell?
To me this suggests that deep-down they don't really believe that, because if they did they would be less concerned abou the here-and-now.

It's the same thing with Heaven, it makes absolutley no sense if you think about it. If heaven was so great wouldn't you want to get there as quickly as possible? Wouldn't the best way be to risk your life going in to dangerous war-torn areas to help people? Instead they wait around on their asses in SUVs doing nothing particularly great for 70+ years until they die. That suggests a certain lack of faith in the outcome to me.

But in the end there is no use in trying to make any sense out of mad people beliving crazy shit.

Sablicious
09-09-2010, 08:10 AM
You simply arrest the guy and give the Islamites the small victory they'll in fact get in lieu of the enormous incentive to further propogate violence that a Qu-ran burning would surely give rise to.

Why give them even more excuses to kill those more enlightened than what they already afford themselves? [Potentially] lives in exchange for such trifle is an idiot's barter, irrespective of how valid a moral assertion may or may not be made.

Just look at the level of ape-shittery (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=+Lars+Vilks+lecture&aq=f) elicited at the mere association of homosexuality and Islam... in an academic setting no less! Imagine the insanity barbecuing their precious fary tail would ferment! :rolleyes:

Really Not All That Bright
09-09-2010, 09:02 AM
Interesting development: Jones says he might call it off if the White House asks nicely (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100909/ts_alt_afp/usattacksreligionislampastor_20100909134139).

So it really is just a publicity stunt.

Uzi
09-09-2010, 09:52 AM
So it really is just a publicity stunt.

Really?! I'm shocked. Shocked, I say!

Uh, what did you think it was about if not a publicity stunt?

Vinyl Turnip
09-09-2010, 09:54 AM
Some kind of sick moustache exhibitionism?

Dung Beetle
09-09-2010, 09:57 AM
I live on the other side of town from Reverend Asshole’s church. I know one lady who lives out that way who’s making plans to be away for the weekend, for safety’s sake.

The Sheriff’s Office is planning to send Dove World a bill for the added security needed this weekend, but I’m sure they’ll never pay it.

Really Not All That Bright
09-09-2010, 10:00 AM
Uh, what did you think it was about if not a publicity stunt?
Sorry. I should have said it's really about Jones' self-aggrandization, not some big principled stand against Islam.
The Sheriff’s Office is planning to send Dove World a bill for the added security needed this weekend, but I’m sure they’ll never pay it.
Somebody linked to an article earlier in the thread that said the church building was being foreclosed on, so that's probably a safe bet.

Magiver
09-09-2010, 11:06 AM
So, Muslims are a violent, irrational and unstable people. Which is why its a good idea to pee in their Cheerios. What could possibly go wrong?Other than it's going to leave a bad taste in there mouth.

The Reverend has no support for this venture at all and will reap what he sows.

Evil Captor
09-09-2010, 11:19 AM
Hmmm. My basic problem is that the guy is burning a book. In my mind, I see a bunch of mouth-breathers standing around a fire going, "We're teh ignorant! We're teh stupid! We winz! That'll show thoz pointy-hedded knowitalls!"

As for it being the Koran? Meh. Wouldnt care it the fuel was provided by Bibles as well. The radical Muslims gonna be radicalized by that? Hell, it's not like 911 happened because of book bonfires. Whatever vile shit they have planned will happen or won't happen whether some of us burn books or not. Just call the book-burners idiots, cause they are, and move on.

Revenant Threshold
09-09-2010, 11:28 AM
To put it in those terms, a person who is convinced that god wishes them to hate x will, in general, be quite able to draw equal supportive meaning from each of those sentences.

I agree with that. It doesn't make them right, though. The text can stand alone and have meaning regardless of how some people want to interpret them. But that's tantamount to saying "Yes, they interpret it this way, but they are wrong; the correct meaning is this". But it's your word against theirs. There is no inherent correct meaning. There's the intent of the author, but even that may not have been adequately put to paper. Anything else is just guesswork and interpretation; text cannot stand alone once a human has gotten involved. All I'm saying is that it is easier to get to C if you don't have to start from A.
Love->Hate->Kill Not really. The complications between B and C might well be more complicated than someone who has to go through all three points. It's not as though all our philosophical ideas can be summed up so easily anyway. Someone might well see a clear, obvious, inherent meaning that leads them from A to B to C, while someone else might well have considerable trouble and much internal debate and uncertainty about just going from B to C.

Revenant Threshold
09-09-2010, 11:34 AM
It is not my contention that they are the same statement; they have different words, obviously. The second part is right; it is my contention that they are, effectively, the same statement in terms of what meaning people may draw from them. To put it in those terms, a person who is convinced that god wishes them to hate x will, in general, be quite able to draw equal supportive meaning from each of those sentences. How do you think the follower of a prophet who willingly died in an act of total sacrifice is viewed in comparison to a warrior prophet who codifies strict adherence to laws he set down?

Put another way, which one creates an atmosphere more conducive to violence given that all religions have followers of varying degrees of intensity. I would say that, like with words, the examples of prophets (especially given that we only have accounts of those prophets via such texts) are generally long and varied enough that it is as easy with one as it is with the other.

I would argue that, even considering that all religions have followers of varying degrees of intensity, that the histories of prophets (including Jesus and Mohammed) are effectively neutral so far as supporting or negating an atmosphere conducive to violence. You get what you put in. The same, I would say, is also true the other way around; neither of the two offered prophets is more or less likely to create an atmosphere conducive to violence against their followers, as well as amongst them. Again, you get what you put in.

Uzi
09-09-2010, 11:46 AM
Not really. The complications between B and C might well be more complicated than someone who has to go through all three points. It's not as though all our philosophical ideas can be summed up so easily anyway. Someone might well see a clear, obvious, inherent meaning that leads them from A to B to C, while someone else might well have considerable trouble and much internal debate and uncertainty about just going from B to C.

So, you'd agree that penalties for murder should be eliminated as people are going to kill no matter what is written down in the legal code?

Magiver
09-09-2010, 11:49 AM
I would argue that, even considering that all religions have followers of varying degrees of intensity, that the histories of prophets (including Jesus and Mohammed) are effectively neutral so far as supporting or negating an atmosphere conducive to violence. You get what you put in. The same, I would say, is also true the other way around; neither of the two offered prophets is more or less likely to create an atmosphere conducive to violence against their followers, as well as amongst them. Again, you get what you put in.
I don't follow the logic of your point at all. There is no historic reference to Jesus killing people for any reason. He never wrote down, or dictated anything. Those who recorded his teachings did not reference anything remotely hostile in regards to actions others should take. This is in stark contrast to Mohamed's life as a warrior and his fairly strict codification of his religion. This would by default create a greater proportion of violence with those who represent the extreme end of the religion.

Revenant Threshold
09-09-2010, 11:52 AM
Not really. The complications between B and C might well be more complicated than someone who has to go through all three points. It's not as though all our philosophical ideas can be summed up so easily anyway. Someone might well see a clear, obvious, inherent meaning that leads them from A to B to C, while someone else might well have considerable trouble and much internal debate and uncertainty about just going from B to C.

So, you'd agree that penalties for murder should be eliminated as people are going to kill no matter what is written down in the legal code? Certainly, people will murder no matter what is written down in the legal code.

The arrest, periods of confinement, criminal trial, incarceration, or perhaps death penalty depending on location, as written out in that code, are pretty damn good at it, though. Certainly the words themselves don't mean very much, if that's your point.

elucidator
09-09-2010, 11:57 AM
One should remember that when Mohamed arrived on the scene, there was no law at all. None whatsoever. There was only tribal/clan loyalties and blood feuds. That one man could change that is little short of miraculous. Remember as well that the Koran was originally a recitation, Mohamed could neither read nor write. The fact that he presented a recitation composed in an exquisite and eloquent form of Arabic, the kind of Arabic only known to scholars and poets was another factor that astounded his contemporaries, it would be as if Joe, the guy from the Parts Dept. suddenly began spouting sonnets equal to Shakespeare, having not graduated from high school. Sonnets he couldn't write down.

I would urge several of our less informed correspondents to find a book called A Short History of Islam by Ms Karen Armstrong, a woman of profound and lucid intelligence. Naturally, it isn't comprehensive, but it has references and sources enough to satisfy any curiosity it inspires.

Fight your own ignorance, and then come fight mine.

Uzi
09-09-2010, 11:59 AM
The arrest, periods of confinement, criminal trial, incarceration, or perhaps death penalty depending on location, as written out in that code, are pretty damn good at it, though. Certainly the words themselves don't mean very much, if that's your point.

Well what do you think the information in these holy books are telling their followers about penalties and rewards? What you are saying is that no one actually believes what is in their holy books or the chances of burning in hell or being in heaven.

Revenant Threshold
09-09-2010, 11:59 AM
I would argue that, even considering that all religions have followers of varying degrees of intensity, that the histories of prophets (including Jesus and Mohammed) are effectively neutral so far as supporting or negating an atmosphere conducive to violence. You get what you put in. The same, I would say, is also true the other way around; neither of the two offered prophets is more or less likely to create an atmosphere conducive to violence against their followers, as well as amongst them. Again, you get what you put in.
I don't follow the logic of your point at all. There is no historic reference to Jesus killing people for any reason. He never wrote down, or dictated anything. Those who recorded his teachings did not reference anything remotely hostile in regards to actions others should take. This is in stark contrast to Mohamed's life as a warrior and his fairly strict codification of his religion. This would by default create a greater proportion of violence with those who represent the extreme end of the religion. No, it wouldn't. You presume not only that your interpretation is correct, but that others would share your interpretation.

Perhaps one reason you don't follow the logic of my point is that it relies, essentially, on illogical actions. We generally take what we get out of a text from what we bring to it, not the text itself; our interpretations are hugely affected by our personal biases. It doesn't matter whether one book is more violent than the other. It doesn't matter, to go to the greatest extreme, if we have on one hand a prophet whose sole words are "love people" and on the other a prophet whose words are "kill the fuckers"; if you are so disposed to violence, you will be able to take support from the former, and if disposed to peace take support from the latter. The lengthier the books, the more justifications may be created from it, irregardless of content.

What matters is the interpretation. And the interpretation is not bound by the text, but by the reader.

Revenant Threshold
09-09-2010, 12:02 PM
The arrest, periods of confinement, criminal trial, incarceration, or perhaps death penalty depending on location, as written out in that code, are pretty damn good at it, though. Certainly the words themselves don't mean very much, if that's your point.

Well what do you think the information in these holy books are telling their followers about penalties and rewards? What you are saying is that no one actually believes what is in their holy books or the chances of burning in hell or being in heaven. Again, I think that the words mean very little; a person convinced of their moral rightness will happily read "do this, and you'll go to hell" as "Yes, please, more of that behaviour and it's fluffy clouds and a harp for you!". As with the legal code, the words mean very little, since they are up to interpretation.

Now, where they differ is that an interpretation of the law is enforced. You may well believe you have murdered someone in a perfectly legal way, but that will not stop those friendly police officers from giving you some nice new handwear. With religion, it's trickier; actions of the kind you mention occur after death, so we don't really have anyone to point to as examples - except, of course, those examples written down in those holy books, but of course that has the same problem. If we could point to actual people who we could see had some kind of eternal reward or punishment, probably things would be different.

Magiver
09-09-2010, 12:30 PM
One should remember that when Mohamed arrived on the scene, there was no law at all. None whatsoever. There was only tribal/clan loyalties and blood feuds. That one man could change that is little short of miraculous. Remember as well that the Koran was originally a recitation, Mohamed could neither read nor write. The fact that he presented a recitation composed in an exquisite and eloquent form of Arabic, the kind of Arabic only known to scholars and poets was another factor that astounded his contemporaries, it would be as if Joe, the guy from the Parts Dept. suddenly began spouting sonnets equal to Shakespeare, having not graduated from high school. Sonnets he couldn't write down.

I would urge several of our less informed correspondents to find a book called A Short History of Islam by Ms Karen Armstrong, a woman of profound and lucid intelligence. Naturally, it isn't comprehensive, but it has references and sources enough to satisfy any curiosity it inspires.

Fight your own ignorance, and then come fight mine. Mohamed worked in the same feudal/tribal environment that Jesus worked in. He enforced his message at the point of a sword. Jesus gave his life for the sins of man.

Mohamed wouldn't be the first leader to win over people with flowery words and Jesus won't be the last to lead by example.

None of this changes the concept that words and actions mean things and people will follow them. When you kill to gain power and codify this as part of the process of enlightenment then that is how the most extreme of followers will behave.

The difference is that while Reverend Jackass is burning a book, those who object to the mere presence of the Reverend's book killed 10 doctor's recently whose crime was humanitarian medical service.

Magiver
09-09-2010, 12:35 PM
Again, I think that the words mean very little.... what else do followers have to go on than the words and actions of their prophet?

Do you think the people chanting "Death to Christians" over this are kidding?

Revenant Threshold
09-09-2010, 12:40 PM
Again, I think that the words mean very little.... what else do followers have to go on than the words and actions of their prophet?

Do you think the people chanting "Death to Christians" over this are kidding? Their beliefs. Their innermost view of how the world is. Their life experiences.

And, of course, the words and actions of their prophet. But their opinion of what those words meant, and what those actions were for, are of course affected by those other things too.

No, I do not believe that the people chanting "Death to Christians" over this are kidding. Do you think I think that?

elucidator
09-09-2010, 12:52 PM
So, what's your plan? We either kill them all, or find some way to live together. And there's a lot of them. Really, a whole bunch. Forcibly convert them? But you're against that, or at least when they do it you're against it. So what is to be done, then?

By the way, despite the similarity in spelling "blood feud" and "feudal" have very, very different meanings. And insisting on a similar state of lawlessness between a Palestine firmly under Roman Empire rule and Arabia is.....oh, dear, how to be polite about this....not historically supportable. Yes, that will have to do.

Magiver
09-09-2010, 12:57 PM
] Their beliefs. Their innermost view of how the world is. Their life experiences.

And, of course, the words and actions of their prophet. But their opinion of what those words meant, and what those actions were for, are of course affected by those other things too.

No, I do not believe that the people chanting "Death to Christians" over this are kidding. Do you think I think that? It appears as if you're arguing that there is no relationship between the words and actions of Mohamed and the reaction to the burning of Korans.

Revenant Threshold
09-09-2010, 01:03 PM
] Their beliefs. Their innermost view of how the world is. Their life experiences.

And, of course, the words and actions of their prophet. But their opinion of what those words meant, and what those actions were for, are of course affected by those other things too.

No, I do not believe that the people chanting "Death to Christians" over this are kidding. Do you think I think that? It appears as if you're arguing that there is no relationship between the words and actions of Mohamed and the reaction to the burning of Korans. Yes, that's correct. I'd say that there is a relationship between the interpretation of the words and actions of Mohammed and the reaction to the burning of Korans. Not to mention a relationship to interpretations of the words and actions of Mohammed directly to the burning of Korans. And, of course, to the reaction to the reaction to the burning of Korans, to go the other way, as exemplified in this thread.

Uzi
09-09-2010, 01:05 PM
I am totally baffled by RT's response. When I read books, especially non-fiction, I try to understand the author's meaning and gain some insight into what his message is.

Yes, I bring my life experience along for the ride, but there is no way that I can warp black to white and white to black unless I clearly intend to misinterpret that message. And I'm open to others pointing out my errors in that interpretation.

I believe that all people have the same basic needs and desires tempered by the culture they live within. Most just want to live their lives in peace. Yet, some people find it easier to hate and would take every opportunity to do so. Having a god given reason to do so makes it that much easier the same if there were no laws and consequences for breaking them.

You don't leave your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition to stop the professional car thief, but to prevent the person who wants to joyride or might spontaneously succumb to temptation. Those are the sorts of people who will be influenced by words one way or the other.

elucidator
09-09-2010, 01:11 PM
It appears as if you're arguing that there is no relationship between the words and actions of Mohamed and the reaction to the burning of Korans.

So you're plan, then, is to keep telling them they are a bunch of rabid baboons following an evil cult? What could possibly go wrong?

Sandwich
09-09-2010, 01:11 PM
So, what's your plan? We either kill them all, or find some way to live together. And there's a lot of them. Really, a whole bunch. Forcibly convert them? But you're against that, or at least when they do it you're against it. So what is to be done, then? do.

This is the point. There isn't a great deal I can do. It's a Moslem problem that only Moslems can solve. We're just watching. That some of us end up burning korans in frustration or stupidity or whatever is just something Moslems are going to have to accept too. If the burnings result in murderous riots in Moslem countries that will simply reinforce that the problem is within Islam. Maybe I'm wrong, but it appears to me that too often people pretend that Islamic terrorism is somehow unrelated to Islam.

Revenant Threshold
09-09-2010, 01:16 PM
I am totally baffled by RT's response. When I read books, especially non-fiction, I try to understand the author's meaning and gain some insight into what his message is.

Yes, I bring my life experience along for the ride, but there is no way that I can warp black to white and white to black unless I clearly intend to misinterpret that message. And I'm open to others pointing out my errors in that interpretation. How do you know that you do not make such large mistakes in interpretation? How do you know that your biases do not affect even your acceptance of others pointing out potential mistakes? You're baffled by my response; i'm baffled that someone could rule out potential flaws, even big flaws, so completely.I believe that all people have the same basic needs and desires tempered by the culture they live within. Most just want to live their lives in peace. Yet, some people find it easier to hate and would take every opportunity to do so. Having a god given reason to do so makes it that much easier the same if there were no laws and consequences for breaking them. Yes, it most certainly does. Which is why people look for those god given reasons, set out with the intent to find the answers they're looking for, and, inevitably, find them. You don't leave your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition to stop the professional car thief, but to prevent the person who wants to joyride or might spontaneously succumb to temptation. Those are the sorts of people who will be influenced by words one way or the other. A person who is apt to do one thing spontaneously is apt to be spontaneous in general. A person who succumbs to temptation may not simply wait for chances to sate their desire to come along, but actively (and perhaps unconsciously) be on the lookout for them. It's not simply a matter of the extremes seeing what they want to see, while the rest of us more rational types understand and recognise our own biases. To the contrary; it's the person who thinks he is most in control of his own mind that is most at risk of missing something, whether through arrogance at our own rationality in comparison, or simply through the mistake believing ability is ultimate ability.

elucidator
09-09-2010, 01:20 PM
...too often people pretend that Islamic terrorism is somehow unrelated to Islam.

There is nothing uniquely Islamic about the use of terror to get one's way. How many Muslims did we kill to get our way in Iraq? We secular, tolerant, largely Christian, how much blood is on our hands? I've heard figures north of one hundred thousand. Should we offer ourselves as examples, paragons of humane and enightened progress?

We've done so much for them, and yet they don't love us. Puzzling.

Uzi
09-09-2010, 01:23 PM
So you're plan, then, is to keep telling them they are a bunch of rabid baboons following an evil cult? What could possibly go wrong?

It would be a whole lot easier to address questions like this if we knew who you were asking it of.

But, if I were suddenly gifted with dictator for life status, I'd be removing special status for religion. You want to believe fairy tales, you do it at home. Want to set up a church? Then pay property taxes like any other organization and report your earnings. Hide pedophiles in your ranks? Your doors will be shut. Want to send your kids to religious schools? There is a public school down the street where every other kid goes.

And as I've said in other threads, if your god has a problem with any of it you can bring him to the court room as a witness for your side of the argument.

Otherwise, there isn't much I can do now other than bitch about people who want to live in the 7th century and drag the rest back to that era.

Kobal2
09-09-2010, 01:27 PM
Which is worse, burning a copy of the Koran, or eternally burning all of its followers in Hell?

Even if we were to accept your conception of Christians as bona fide fact, what do I care where they think I'm going when I die since, err, I'm not ? They can believe all they want, brother, I live and let live and I'm probably just as sure there's absolutely nothing after death as they are of the opposite. Doesn't really matter one way or the other.
However, should they go out of their way to vex me or annoy me, then we'd have ourselves a problem. And if these yahoos went around burning copies of The Lord of the Rings, I'd get really pissed. Like, send a strongly worded e-mail pissed. Oh yeah, you heard me. I don't dick around.

what else do followers have to go on than the words and actions of their prophet?

Their own certitudes, gut feelings, deductions/delusions about the world and prejudices. Those of the people around them. And what the Imam says, of course. But mostly what they think they can get away with. Just like everyone else, really.

Just look at the "Afghanistan's dirty secret" thread. The article cited mentions that while the Koran specifically and unequivocally forbids homosexuality, they still reckon it's A-OK to bugger little boys because "it's not homosexuality if you don't love the guy".
I mean, really. Even the excuses I made up when I was 9 and late on my homework weren't as flimsy. And they're trying to fib a wrathful God here, not their good natured (if a bit weird) math teacher.

Which goes to show : culture and crowd consensus trumps religious text 10 times out of 10.

Sandwich
09-09-2010, 01:30 PM
...too often people pretend that Islamic terrorism is somehow unrelated to Islam.

There is nothing uniquely Islamic about the use of terror to get one's way. How many Muslims did we kill to get our way in Iraq? We secular, tolerant, largely Christian, how much blood is on our hands? I've heard figures north of one hundred thousand. Should we offer ourselves as examples, paragons of humane and enightened progress?

We've done so much for them, and yet they don't love us. Puzzling.

Classic. I shall keep this as the benchmark example of this phenomenon. You score impressively on solipsism too.

Hint our problems ARE our problems. Their problems are still their problems.

Revenant Threshold
09-09-2010, 01:31 PM
So, what's your plan? We either kill them all, or find some way to live together. And there's a lot of them. Really, a whole bunch. Forcibly convert them? But you're against that, or at least when they do it you're against it. So what is to be done, then? do.

This is the point. There isn't a great deal I can do. It's a Moslem problem that only Moslems can solve. We're just watching. That some of us end up burning korans in frustration or stupidity or whatever is just something Moslems are going to have to accept too. If the burnings result in murderous riots in Moslem countries that will simply reinforce that the problem is within Islam. Maybe I'm wrong, but it appears to me that too often people pretend that Islamic terrorism is somehow unrelated to Islam. I would characterise it more as not accepting that the actions of some Muslims (who, certainly, used their religion to support their actions) should tarnish the reputation of all Muslims. That things like the book burning, which offend not solely those Muslims who wish and cause harm but universally all Muslims (and non-Muslims, for that matter, via the nonspecificity), suggest that people take examples of Islamic terrorism and decide that all Muslims must "pay", all Muslims must be made to see the light.

I mean, off the top of my head, this could be an Osama bin Laden-facsimile bonfire. I would have no issue with such a thing, and in fact it's something that's already been done (I know he's been a Guy for November 5th over here). One would assume that, perhaps, as a reaction to 9/11, the names of the suicide attackers might be cursed. Some manner, basically, of offending those who are actually offensive in two meanings of the term. But no, it's just going to be Korans. When the apparently important thing is not to specify the target, but rather the amount of offense caused, I cannot help but think that the problem for some people is not Islamic terrorism. It's Islam. Because that's the target they're painting.

elucidator
09-09-2010, 01:38 PM
...Classic. I shall keep this as the benchmark example of this phenomenon. You score impressively on solipsism too.

So, what is to be done? I offer you the long, hard road of patience, tolerance, and respect, coupled with an unyielding refusal to succumb to the temptations of violence. We must be the people we insist they become, otherwise, we are simply heavily armed hypocrites.

Quick, easy, and simple? No, hard, long, and torturous. No doubt you have a better plan. Bring it.

Magiver
09-09-2010, 01:51 PM
So, what's your plan? We either kill them all, or find some way to live together. And there's a lot of them. Really, a whole bunch. Forcibly convert them? But you're against that, or at least when they do it you're against it. So what is to be done, then?

A "plan"? We're discussing "plans" now? Maybe you could make a new thread. You can start by explaining how to tailor the 1st amendment to meet the needs of Muslims.

"By the way, despite the similarity in spelling "blood feud" and "feudal" have very, very different meanings. And insisting on a similar state of lawlessness between a Palestine firmly under Roman Empire rule and Arabia is.....oh, dear, how to be polite about this....not historically supportable. Yes, that will have to do. I must have mis-remembered history. I could have sworn Mohamed and his followers went on a world tour. Isn't there a mosque in Jerusalem built on a Jewish temple? Must have been a different area that Jesus lived in.

elucidator
09-09-2010, 01:56 PM
So, no, then? You got nothin', plan wise?

Magiver
09-09-2010, 02:00 PM
Yes, that's correct. I'd say that there is a relationship between the interpretation of the words and actions of Mohammed and the reaction to the burning of Korans. Not to mention a relationship to interpretations of the words and actions of Mohammed directly to the burning of Korans. And, of course, to the reaction to the reaction to the burning of Korans, to go the other way, as exemplified in this thread. So to summarize your position: The violent actions of extremist Muslims to cartoons and burning korans reflect the words and actions of Mohamed and the non-violent reactions to cartoons by extremist Christians reflect the words and actions of Jesus.

Gangster Octopus
09-09-2010, 02:07 PM
The only religion that truly sucks and has a problem is the Extremist religion, Christian extremist, Muslim extremist, Animal Rights extremists, whatever. This Pastor is an extremist asshole and any particular Muslim extremist who decides to retaliate is also an asshole and they share the same philosophy, fuck the other guy.

Dung Beetle
09-09-2010, 02:07 PM
Oh, perfect. (http://www.gainesville.com/article/20100909/articles/100909483&tc=yahoo) Westboro Baptist Church will pick up the slack!

Revenant Threshold
09-09-2010, 02:26 PM
Yes, that's correct. I'd say that there is a relationship between the interpretation of the words and actions of Mohammed and the reaction to the burning of Korans. Not to mention a relationship to interpretations of the words and actions of Mohammed directly to the burning of Korans. And, of course, to the reaction to the reaction to the burning of Korans, to go the other way, as exemplified in this thread. So to summarize your position: The violent actions of extremist Muslims to cartoons and burning korans reflect the words and actions of Mohamed and the non-violent reactions to cartoons by extremist Christians reflect the words and actions of Jesus. What? No. Isn't that your position?

Here's a summary of my position; the violent actions of extremist Muslims to cartoons and burning korans reflect, in some part, their interpretations of the words and actions of Mohammed. The non-violent reactions to cartoons by extremist Christians reflect, in some part, their interpretations of the words and actions of Jesus.

Fear Itself
09-09-2010, 02:39 PM
Oh, perfect. (http://www.gainesville.com/article/20100909/articles/100909483&tc=yahoo) Westboro Baptist Church will pick up the slack!So WBC already burned a Koran, and nobody noticed? Given their usual public relations whoring, how did that slip under the MSM radar?

Really Not All That Bright
09-09-2010, 03:17 PM
God Hates Words.

Kobal2
09-09-2010, 03:18 PM
Oh, perfect. (http://www.gainesville.com/article/20100909/articles/100909483&tc=yahoo) Westboro Baptist Church will pick up the slack!

I'm in love with this bit :

He told a group of reporters Wednesday that he planned to burn at least one copy of the Quran.

Am I the only one getting a "Well, I got this one to brandish in front of my parishioners, so this one Imma burn for sure - but apparently nobody else thought about bringing other Korans to burn, and they're not going to buy some just to chuck 'em so...um... Don't get me wrong, we're certainly all hoping and praying for a bonfire that'd put the Reich to shame, but right now the Koran logistics don't look too good." vibe from just that one sentence ?

Mtgman
09-09-2010, 04:01 PM
There was an argument today from Azizah al-Hibri, a professor of law, University of Richmond, on the Diane Rehm show (http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-09-09/religious-intolerance-us?page=1) which said the government should use national security as the rationale to shut the burning down. She said it was as justified as the restrictions on sending money overseas to mosques or Islamic charities. Restrictions on tithing or sending money to Islamic charities is a burden on the free exercise clause of the first amendment, but is seen as necessary to the war on terror. Given the almost unanimous opinion of the military and governmental leadership that this act could put American lives at greater risk, this would seem to hold water. The rationale for suppressing tithing is to withhold support from terrorists who would do violence against Americans. The same rationale would apply to suppressing burning the Koran, and in both cases it's First Amendment rights being impinged.

I'm personally of the opinion that there are still plenty of options available for Muslims in the US to fulfill their tithing obligations without running afoul of the restrictions on who they can give to, but there are also still plenty of options available for those who wish to protest Islamic extremism if burning the Koran was restricted.

Enjoy,
Steven

Uzi
09-09-2010, 04:16 PM
Pastor calls off Koran burning (http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100909/obama-minister-100909/20100909?hub=CalgaryHome)

XT
09-09-2010, 04:18 PM
Similar (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100909/ap_on_re_us/quran_burning) article I was getting ready to post before I was beaten to the punch...

-XT

Uzi
09-09-2010, 04:22 PM
What is the bet that he found someone to pay the bills if he called the whole thing off?

Raygun99
09-09-2010, 04:58 PM
What is the bet that he found someone to pay the bills if he called the whole thing off?

I've had little doubt that this is solely about money from the beginning.

straight man
09-09-2010, 05:02 PM
I am not faimilar with the terrorism being exported from Sri Lanka and Serbia but I get the impression that muslim nations (especially middle eastern muslim nations produce MUCH more than their fair share of terrorism. Maybe its just the liberal media giving me that impression.
Off the top of my head, Sri Lankan terrorists assassinated the friggin' Indian prime minister. They have also been running mafia in Toronto (don't know if that's gone away with the Tigers in defeat.) Other examples of non-Muslim terrorists being active outside their own country aren't hard to think up either: Sikh terrorists were responsible for the Air India bombing; Irish nationalists attacked targets in England; Chechens attacked targets in Moscow (TBF, really just a distant part of the same country); Aum Shinrikyo attacked its own country but used Australia to test nerve gas; etc. It's not especially common to attack outside your own region, but then again, there haven't been that many attacks inside the West, either, and often those have been run by local crazies anyway.

IOW, I don't know exactly how Islam compares to other religions and groups in terms of exporting terrorism, but it's plainly not outside the boundaries of normality.

Rune
09-09-2010, 05:32 PM
I’m hoping we get to see Islamic Rage Boy. It’s been a while I think. Hope he is ok. You get to miss the little fella.

BrainGlutton
09-09-2010, 05:36 PM
The Koran-burning event has been canceled. (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/florida-pastor-calls-off-koran-burning/?partner=rss&emc=rss)

Rune
09-09-2010, 05:41 PM
The Koran-burning event has been canceled. (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/florida-pastor-calls-off-koran-burning/?partner=rss&emc=rss)Still hoping for Rage boy. Why was it such a big thing? Just because some dude nobody ever heard of before says he's going to do the thing. It's not like it hasn't been done a thousand times before. There are ca. 10,000 videos on YouTube of burning korans.

John Mace
09-09-2010, 06:24 PM
The Koran-burning event has been canceled. (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/florida-pastor-calls-off-koran-burning/?partner=rss&emc=rss)

Thank God. Or Allah, or whatever.

I've been all a dither this week about what one wears to a Koran burning event.

magellan01
09-09-2010, 07:27 PM
I've been reading about the latest developments in the news today. And while I have no personal interest in burning the Koran, or the Bible, or the American flag, we live in a country in which those forms of expression are permitted. So, I'm glad that the burning will not take place. But I am not so wild about the government being so protective about not burning one particular book—whatever it is.

Part of me now wishes that the burning would take place. Not for the statement it would make about the Koran, but for the principle it would uphold for the U.S. It's all fine and well for adherents of any religion to treat their books with an appropriate, even ridiculous amount of deference and respect. But the rest of the world has no such obligation. And there is certainly no such obligation for citizens of a country in which you can burn the flag to give the Koran any special place.

This is troublesome. We're allowing them, through the threat of ramped up violence, to dictate the actions of American non-Muslims. This sets a bad precedent. I think it's time to tell the part of the Muslim world that is backward, extreme, and violent to go fuck themselves. First the cartoon bullshit and now this. Enough already. These scumbags—and that's what the people are who would resort to violence due to a cartoon or a Koran burning—need to be told in front of the whole world that the world does not share your fucked-up, contorted view of the world.

So, let the Korans burn on television in between cartoons of Muhammad falling in love with a pig.

This has got to stop. The extremists are not going to become more moderate. They will be emboldened, and then think they have the right to make some other demands down the road. Nope. Let the confrontation begin now.

elucidator
09-09-2010, 07:29 PM
The "confrontation". You have a genius for euphemism.

joebuck20
09-09-2010, 07:40 PM
I was wondering, was it "The Daily Show" that first brought national attention to this? Because I don't remember hearing anything about it until they showed some local new story on it during a larger segment about the Ground Zero mosque controversy.

John Mace
09-09-2010, 07:44 PM
The "confrontation". You have a genius for euphemism.
Quite. In future, we shall refer to it as "The Troubles". Now, I must get back to my gardening!

Fear Itself
09-09-2010, 08:22 PM
This has got to stop. The extremists are not going to become more moderate. They will be emboldened, and then think they have the right to make some other demands down the road. Nope. Let the confrontation begin now.So let me get this straight. If we burn the Koran, the extremists will become enraged, and launch even more terrorist acts against American interests.

But if we don't burn the Koran, the extremists will be emboldened, and will launch even more terrorist acts against American interests.

Our actions have no effect on the extremists; they are sworn to attack us no matter what we do. It is time to stop basing our actions on what we think the extremists will do. Enraging them is no better than emboldening them, so why don't we just say FUCK THEM and show more concern for the sensibilities of our allies rather than our enemies?

We should do what we know is the right thing to do, which is not to offend or insult our friends in the Muslim community, by burning their holy books, or by blocking the construction of their houses of worship. By lumping them in with the extremists, we lose the debate altogether, and the terrorists win.