If those books contained messages from prisoners to people on the outside and the messages were “bad”, why would you burn the evidence?
Why did you burn those books?
There was something bad in them.
What?
I’d show you but I burned them up.
Doesn’t really make sense to me. Neither does rioting over it but why not show how the ‘terrorist’ is disrespecting the Koran and let them see who respects their religion and who doesn’t.
Because they’re not going to be prosecuting these people for anything. I agree the lack of evidence makes it more difficult to accept their statements, but they don’t particularly need the evidence.
We crap on Christianity in this country like it was a required body function. WTH are you talking about?
That would explain why Christians are a despised and powerless minority, such that major political candidates feel free to ignore them.
Yeah, the persecution just never ends what with your god on our money, in our pledge, in our court oaths, state sanctioned holy days. Why just the other day I heard businesses owned by Christian churches have to abide by federal laws protecting the rights of employees that don’t share their faith.
You guys got it bad.
That’s an extremely stupid comment.
Please give me some examples of prominent political figures “taking a crap on Christianity”.
I just posted this in another GD thread concerning Islam, and it seems that this thread would benefit from it, as well:
Yet another incident that points to the ill fit between Islam and the civilized world. We need to let adherents of that religion know that the “justification” that someone made fun of Muhammad, or drew a cartoon of him or burned a Koran is actually ZERO justification. The more we tip-toe around this we imply that that actually do have some justification to commit violence because their widdle feewlings were hurt. Fuck that. Note to Muslims: Welcome to the 21 century. Enjoy yourselves. If you insist on acting like ignorant, atavistic troglodytes, go fuck yourselves.
nice attempt at a straw man to alter an argument. We as a nation routinely make light of Jesus in the media. His image is peed on, made into chocolate, dipped in urine, andderided in cartoons. Someone could write a book just on the fun we’ve had with Tebow.
I could literally post indefinitely on what would be considered blasphemy related to Jesus. It’s because of the First Amendment, which was written by Christians to defend against government intrusion into religion and the freedom to speak out on any subject without persecution.
Jesus can handle it. You’re the one who can’t.
Did you know, by any chance, that reverence for Jesus as a Messenger of God is central to Muhammad’s teachings? That devout Muslims refuse to accept the Crucifixion, on the grounds that God would never allow such a thing to happen to his Beloved Prophet? And that the Koran describes Jesus has having freckles? Rather apt, in my estimation, but YMMV.
We thank the US military for that message.
Time and time and time again; when the fuck is the US military going to learn how not to lose an occupation?
Not sure who you’re talking to but it’s not me. I’m not shilling Christianity. But if you’re referring to Christians who can handle it, that would be all of Western civilization because Christian Blasphemy is a routine part of life.
Thanks for the info professor Politically Correct. Now tell me how Muhammad and his followers would handle blasphemy.
That’s a different issue. Mistake were made. Mistakes will be made. Burning a book is simply never a justification for killing. Sorry you, and others, can’t seem to grasp that simple fact.
The Koran also shows much reverence to Mary, his mother.
If you think it’s a book, you are also eligible for the knucklehead US military.
I don’t think a Nixon reference is the right play here. 
Much as I like “elibible,” it is indeed a book. Some people like some books more than others, but they’re still books.
One of those is a ridiculing of Tim Tebow not Jesus. None of the rest are remotely mainstream except maybe, maybe the episode of South Park and all of those inspired protests and condemnations.
By the standards you’re setting then Muslims are tolerant of blasphemy because Muhammad jokes and jokes about God are quite common in much of the Islamic world.
Most of us recognize the difference between jokes by the ingroup and insults directed by someone who is in the midst of conquering and exploiting you.
What do you think would have happened during the 60s to someone who wandered into West Belfast wearing a Union Jack and shouting “The Pope’s a Queer”!
Goodness me, you sound parochial.
This would have happened, sooner or later. Suppose it got out that NATO troops were eating bacon? That would have set the local mullahs off. But, a question: these texts (that were burned) had been desecrated by Muslims (they had written messages in the pages). Since they had been desecrated, they were no longer sacred-therefore, they could be (lawfully) destroyed.
Why didn’t the US commander think of that?
I hope so, but sometimes I am not so sure the conquering and exploiting aspect is recognized by most.
I honestly don’t get your point. Everything I cited made the news. I pulled them from memory and a quick internet search. The SNL skit made fun of Jesus as a god/prophet as well as Tebow even though Tebow was the main focus. If you substituted Mohammad it would not have gone over well.
I think he would have gotten his ass kicked for either wearing the Union Jack or the “Pope is Queer”. Both would have been an insult directed specifically at Irish Catholics akin to Zombie Muhammad walking around a mosque parking lot during prayers.
Here is where your example is worth examining closer. There was a Zombie Pope in the same parade and statistically there would have been exponentially more Catholics at the event. The odds of someone going after Zombie Pope should be higher. Putting that aside as a random act, if this goes viral, the insult might get a condemnation from a Catholic Bishop. That, plus $1 won’t buy you a cup of coffee but if an Imam focuses on it the condemnation of blasphemy is going to be many magnitudes more dangerous. Look at the riots that resulted from the mere suggestion of burning a koran. You can burn Bibles all day long and it’s not going to stir up the same level of emotion.
While religions can and have been used in power struggles throughout the centuries it is their core structures that drive them over time. Christianity and Islamic wars were notoriously brutal in the back-and-forth power struggles for land. You still see this in Africa as cultures clash across the continent. But take away the political power struggle and you’re still left with a core structure of brutal retribution against those who break Islamic law. This goes beyond the books of the 2 religions. It is the actions of the respective prophets that, IMO, drives the punishment against those who challenge it (blasphemy).
With that said we have to look at why people involve themselves with religion. Clearly the fear of death generates the desire to believe in something to alleviate this fear. That “something” is an extension of life through a mystic journey to hopefully a better place. The natural progression from this is to create some kind of reward/punishment system to qualify for the “next life”. This system naturally lends itself to a codification of rules. There is theme of good-versus-evil along with a list of do’s and don’ts. That is religion in a nutshell.
With that said, people generally look to religion for some kind of guidance in their daily lives to both qualify for the next life and to generally be better people. IMO the majority of people in any religion will grasp the concept of being a better person and individual salvation. The fringe in any religion will fall back on the core behavior of the progenitor of their religion. This is where we have more problems with some religions than others in modern day life. It’s to be expected that in some backwater corner of the world people will essentially still be living as if they are in an earlier century. Time has not caught up with them and there is conflict when confronted with 21st century societies. But putting that aside, we still see Islam preached around the world as if it was still in it’s early stages. This is the conflict we see today complete with Imams who actively maintain private armies and train their flock as warriors against evil.
So in summary I see Islam as any other religion consisting of a majority of people who are in it to better themselves and qualify for the next life. The difference is in the fringe element which IMO lends itself more toward violence then a religion such as Buddhism. That tendency is a direct result of Imam’s and followers who look to Muhammad’s actions toward blasphemy to guide their actions.