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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
-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?
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?
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.
Nope. You said you had no idea. And yet that does not stop you from pontificating.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Bears don’t sacrifice their children because of something they read in a bark carving somewhere.