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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So, no, then? You got nothin’, plan wise?
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.
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.
Oh, perfect. Westboro Baptist Church will pick up the slack!
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.
So WBC already burned a Koran, and nobody noticed? Given their usual public relations whoring, how did that slip under the MSM radar?
God Hates Words.
I’m in love with this bit :
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 ?
There was an argument today from Azizah al-Hibri, a professor of law, University of Richmond, on the Diane Rehm show 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
Similar article I was getting ready to post before I was beaten to the punch…
-XT
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.