Thoughts: Koran-Burning Pastor Will Go Forward

[London~Taylor]

Koran-Burning Pastor Will Go Forward
Updated: Wednesday, 08 Sep 2010, 12:49 PM EDT
Published : Tuesday, 07 Sep 2010, 6:39 PM EDT

(NewsCore) - The pastor of a Gainesville, Fla., church vowed Tuesday to move forward with a plan to burn the Koran on September 11 despite condemnation from U.S. officials and world leaders who believe it could incite violence in the Middle East.

Terry Jones, pastor at the Dove World Outreach Center told myFOXorlando.com that his intentions have not been swayed despite increasing protest.

“We feel it’s maybe the right time for America to stand up,” Jones told myFOXorlando.com. “How long are we going to bow down? How long are we going to be controlled, by the terrorists, by radical Islam?”

“We feel it’s time for the church to stand up,” he added.

Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, warned Monday the Koran burning could endanger U.S. troops and the safety of Americans worldwide and inflame and incite violence.

However, Jones said the group would not be swayed.

“We understand the generals concerns, we are taking those into consideration,” Jones told myFOXorldando.com.

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, in a visit to the White House Tuesday, joined Petraeus in speaking out against Jones’ decision to go forward, saying he “strongly condemned” such an act, and urged all people to “demonstrate a respect for faith.”

State Department Spokesman P.J. Crowley called the decision “un-American.”

“It is un-American in the sense that it does not represent the views of the vast majority of Americans, who are respectful of religions -- of the world's great religions,” Crowley told reporters during the daily press briefing.

The church has received not only messages condemning the planned burning, but threats have been made against Jones and the members of his church, according to myFOXorlando.com. The threats are being taken seriously by law enforcement in Gainesville.

However, if anything should happen Jones said he would not feel he or his church was to blame.

“We will not be responsible,” Jones said. “We are only reacting to the violence that is already there in that religion.”

Jones did receive backing from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who while admitting the plan was “distasteful”, added that Jones’ decision was protected by his First Amendment right, the New York Post reported.link (http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpps/news/koran-burning-pastor-will-go-forward-dpgonc-km-20100907_9533823)

"I don't think he would like it if somebody burned a book in his religion that he thinks is holy. ... But the First Amendment protects everybody and you can't say we're going to apply the First Amendment in only those cases where wClick Here (http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpps/news/koran-burning-pastor-will-go-forward-dpgonc-km-20100907_9533823) e are in agreement," Bloomberg said.

So, I just recently seen this on the news where I currently stay here is the link: http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpps/news/koran-burning-pastor-will-go-forward-dpgonc-km-20100907_9533823

but anywhoo, I kept hearing this in my sleep and I was thinking, wow I really hope this is a dream. However, it is FAR from a dream. People are becoming very much more ignorant by the years. The first thing that comes to mind when I heard of this is how people are most likely throwing the 1st Amendment into the picture. However, the 1st Amendment goes out the window when it causes mass destruction such as deaths. I want to understand, what is so important about burning the Koran? What point is it trying to prove?

[Lemon&Lime]

Basically it's proof of America's intolerence. We need to rope up Europe and drag it over to America so it can learn some manners. It's essentially an only-child of a country which has grown up to think that it is always right, it is number one, and it has every right to bully other people into believing and doing what they believe/do.

Basically they're burning the Koran because they make the following thought process:

Terrorists = Muslims = Holy Book Koran
Holy Book Koran + Flames = Showing the terroists that us Americans shall never be beaten!!!

Unfortunately, they forgot that America is the "land of the free" and the "flagship of tolerance and democracy" whilst they made this equation.

Note: I'm aware that not all Americans are this intolerant. It's just that America has a slight reputation, particularly when it comes to schools teaching children about other religions and nations.

[fragglerocks]

The Bible has taught "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

My father had a great idea. He said someone with money needs to rent one of those farm spraying planes, and fly over and dump water on the fire and all the protesters. I wonder how much they would like it then.

All this is, is another Westboro-type church, trying to gain their 15 minutes in the spotlight.

[ElementMK]

I have a lot to say about this, but I'll let the conversation grow before I really start acting pedantic.

This man is an idiot, and he hardly embodies anything about the values and freedoms we have in the United States. This isn't a matter of the First Amendment being violated, but a matter of respect.

I believe that if he wants to burn the Koran (Qur'an), which is a source of wisdom and knowledge for Muslims everywhere, he should light himself on fire, since he is also a source of wisdom and knowledge (I'm using these terms loosely) for his congregation. Fair's fair.

I'm guessing he flunked world history in school, or else he'd understand why book burning is an utterly moronic thing to do.

[Nabila_Ici]

Is he basically saying "hey, we're going to respond to radical islam by being radical too!" ? Because fighting fire with fire (no pun intended) is such a good idea.

Quite ironically, just like terrorists are making Islam look bad, he's making Christianity and Americans look bad. Which is a shame, since it seems that a lot of Christians and Americans are against this, just like the majority of Muslims are against terrorism. I think he's actually giving the terrorists some leverage here, because now they can say 'Look! They're burning the word of God right in front of you! We must wipe them off the face of the earth!'

There are probably going to be riots here, which I am not looking forward to. Not only is he endangering Americans in the Middle East, he's putting so many other lives at risk: what if some idiot decides to attack the American schools, for example, because of this? 70-80% of students that go to American schools here are actually nationals. They're most definitely going to have to beef up security around the churches, the synagogue, and the American embassy here. Oh, and the Israeli one, because most Egyptians will try to find a way to blame it on Israel. It's just so stupid.

[Rectos Dominos]

All this is, is another Westboro-type church, trying to gain their 15 minutes in the spotlight.

I thought the same thing too either that or the pastor is Really fucking batshit stupid. This is offensive to both Muslims and Non-Muslims alike.

[Mia138]

I seriously think this man Jones should be taken into custody. There must be some kind of law in the states about 'Inciting a riot' because thats entirely what he is doing. To be honest it scares me to think what this act might lead to. I'm not in the States but I worry for the safety of people who are because this is exactly the kind of excuse that muslim terrorists are looking for to begin another major attack.
That's why I think he should be stopped before it is allowed to happen. Let him cry that we are not allowing him freedom to express his views - it works both ways.
If he can't be put away on a criminal charge then have him sectioned. He's obviously not sane and needs putting away for his own (and his country's) safety.

[HystericalParoxysm]

Dear Muslims,

I'm really sorry you have to deal with asshats like this. But please know it's not representative of what all Americans think. There's some of us that are actually quite tolerant and chill. Unfortunately there's dumbasses in every group that ruin it for the rest of us. Please try to keep that in mind, and to not paint all of us with the same "hateful asshole" brush that our dumbasses try to paint ya'll with for the whole "terrorist" thing. The loud ones are just the most obvious and it's hard for us to shout over someone who is fueled by hate and ignorance.

Thanks,
The rest of the US

[kiwi_tea]

I refer you all to the words of one of the wisest women in America:

I would hope that Pastor Terry Jones and his supporters will consider the ramifications of their planned book-burning event. It will feed the fire of caustic rhetoric and appear as nothing more than mean-spirited religious intolerance. Don’t feed that fire. If your ultimate point is to prove that the Christian teachings of mercy, justice, freedom, and equality provide the foundation on which our country stands, then your tactic to prove this point is totally counter-productive.

Our nation was founded in part by those fleeing religious persecution. Freedom of religion is integral to our charters of liberty. We don’t need to agree with each other on theological matters, but tolerating each other without unnecessarily provoking strife is how we ensure a civil society. In this as in all things, we should remember the Golden Rule

- Sarah Palin

Indeed. Hell HAS frozen over.

[HystericalParoxysm]

Indeed. Hell HAS frozen over.

No shit, man. I actually find myself agreeing with Sarah Palin on something? What is this - I don't even...

[whiterider]

I know right, HP...

To be honest, this reminds me of being eleven years old again. You know, a bully steals another kid's bag and throws it out the window, or sneaks onto their computer in IT and sets the desktop background to a picture of a hairy sumo wrestler in a nappy. I'm quite convinced that this pastor's thought process is basically "lololol nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah we're being diiiicks and you can't do aaanything about it!". Stupid behaviour which doesn't make much long-term difference to the world, and is specifically designed to offend and anger the target for no reason whatsoever beyond "'Cause I can and I don't like you" - except that burning a Qu'ran is probably one of the most offensive acts imaginable to most Muslims, and may well indeed have long-term effects. It is stupid and petty and childish, and demonstrates all the intelligence, respect, and political awareness of a lump of snot.

So yeah, apparently I'm more radical in my opinion (or at least my expression of it) than Sarah Palin now. :wtf:

[HystericalParoxysm]

Also, this is sort of related... in response, there's now International Buy a Qur'an Day: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=150688798285997&ref=nf

I think it's a neat idea. I'm agnostic-ish but I find holy texts fascinating. I'm off to Amazon to see if I can find a pretty one.

[appelsapgodin]

Basically it's proof of America's intolerence. We need to rope up Europe and drag it over to America so it can learn some manners. I do quite agree with the rest of the post you made, but unfortunately the intolerance against Muslims has taken a big, big leap forward in Europe these days too.

Look at the Geert Wilders controversy in the Netherlands. He and his party got about 25 seats in a parlament of 150 in our recent elections, till this day we have no working government, because the other parties can't sort it out if they want to go rule our country with him or not. The only reason the mayority of the members of our Christian parties don't want to work with him is because forbidding Islam gives a precedent for forbidding anything on an anti-religious base. So, that mean essentially Christian parties could be forbidden too.

Also look at what is happening in France with Burka-prohibition laws etc.

These small examples are just the tip of the iceberg, so to say.

I can even notice it in my own feelings. I'm all for equallity and rights and freedom of speech and open borders and giving everyone an equal chance. However I am also starting to get fed up with being called 'a whore' when walking around in sneakers, jeans and a t-shirt by 'certain men' from my neighborhood. Gay friends get bashed and attacked.

I've been living in one of the 4 mayor cities in the Netherlands for the past 11 years. When I came to live here nothing like that happend in the streets. I wouldn't say it is a daily deal now, but once, twice a month maybe. It does make me feel unsafe in a way.

I've lived abroad, not in a completely different culture as some Muslims may end up with coming here, but my idea was always: When in Rome, do as the Romans do. And that is not what some of these people are doing. They come into my country fully expecting they can keep up their own religious morals no matter how this clashes with the Dutch Tolerance. I think this is a problem that is affecting a lot of Western European countries right now.

[whiterider]

Maybe this is peculiar to me, appelsap, since I've lived mostly in areas where there are plenty of muslims present, but where they're very clearly the minority; but I've always found that, while the Muslims I know haven't adopted "when in Rome", they have taken the view that they will follow their laws and morality, and others may not, and that's none of their business. No-one has the right to yell insults across the streets, regardless of the morality of the situation or of the majority views - that's just common respect. Still, though, it is sadly always the idiots who are most vocal - and in some cases, the most dangerous too.

[Amtram]

Does anyone else feel the irony of this being carried out by a group that calls itself "World Outreach Center"?

American Muslims will most likely act like Americans. They may protest, but few, if any will go rampaging in the streets.

Muslims living in Muslim theocracies, on the other hand, have the Koran as their law, and their law specifies retribution for the desecration of the Koran. There are American citizens over there, and plenty of other innocent people from other countries, who will be hurt or killed because of this act, because the laws in these countries condone those actions.

Having been warned of that, one of the church associates said, essentially, "they knew the job was dangerous when they took it," speculating that this act would make the citizens of Muslim countries no more dangerous to Americans there than they already are.

Yeah. While you're at it, send over a few thousand high powered automatic weapons and maybe some biological weapons. It won't be your fault if they use it to kill innocent people.

[el_flel]

Is he basically saying "hey, we're going to respond to radical islam by being radical too!" ? Because fighting fire with fire (no pun intended) is such a good idea.As far as I can tell that is exactly what he's doing. Hypocritical, much?!

Has this man even thought at all about the kind of consequences this kind of stupid, childish action could have? I think not. Whilst I understand what his motives are (and could not disagree more with them) I don't understand what he is actually hoping to achieve by doing this. It makes absolutely no sense at all.

[fragglerocks]

I have doubts that this protest burning will ever even happen. If the government truly feels that this will lead to soldiers and Americans overseas being harmed, they WILL step in and put a stop to this, whether they are following their own laws or not. It is never in any country's best interest to start a religious war. Too many lives are lost...over what? A deity we can't even prove exists?

[HystericalParoxysm]

The US military/government stepping in to stop what is a highly asshole move - but fully protected speech ("speech" being more widely defined as sort of freedom of expression) - would result in a hell of a lot more trouble than the actual burning would. Being an asshole isn't illegal - nor should it be. Burning a book that you legally own is not illegal - nor should it be. Yes, it's a symbol and one that can cause a huge shitstorm, especially with the -way- it's being done so publicly (I'm sure plenty of fundie whackjobs have burned copies already) - but I'd be damn upset if they used force to stop it, even though I think it's wrong that he's doing it and that he shouldn't - that's kind of what free speech is all about. People can express themselves in ways you may not like - but they're allowed to, just as you can express yourself in ways they may not like, too.

[dadebabe09]

I certainly disagree with what he is doing, but there are a lot of things I disagree with that people do in the name of "their rights". I don't believe he is any more radical than people who burn flags (American flags are the biggest target), bibles and churches. Generally Christians do "turn the other cheek", but if this Pastor is making a stand and doing something radical, it is his "right" to do so. Do you honestly think that One guy, burning One group of "holy books" will condem our country to terroristic anarchy? Do Americans go on killing sprees every time something we hold dear to our beliefs is desecrated? No...I don't think so. If we did, then the entire Middle East would be reduced to the Muslim population in Dearborn, Michigan!

Muslims need to realize that people all over this world will use their god's names in vain. They will draw funny photos of them and make people laugh. People will have premarital sex, be gay, and do all the other things listed out in the Koran as wrong. And much to their chagrin, women will not only stand up, have a voice and be counted but they will show their faces, legs and more doing it. Muslims cannot think for one minute that they can use brute force or threats of violence whenever they see these things in the world outside of their own homes. If they (Radical and non-radical Muslims alike) really think they can stop it by killing a few innocent people with a car bomb, or a group of young men and women who are just trying to do their job with sniper fire, or RUNNING BOEING 747's into REALLY BIG BUILDINGS, they are just as wrong as he is...no, more wrong, because the only thing that is destroyed with the Koran Burning is words on paper. Their destruction will not cost billions of dollars rebuilding infrastructure, no lives will be truly shattered, and no children will be orphaned.

Do I understand what and why this is happening? Yes. Do I agree with it? No. That is why I won't be participating. I think there are far bigger atrocities in this country and abroad that we can all be worrying about than this. Let the Christians think/believe what they want, let the Muslims think/believe what they want, the Jews, Athiests, Democrats, Republicans, everyone...who is to say who is really right?

Tolerance begins with the individal and what I choose to tolerate may be different than what someone else will. Maybe he thinks he has tolerated enough.

[whiterider]

I'm pretty sure non-radical Muslims don't kill people, generally... and I agree, it's a real shame that there are extremists in Islam and, more so, that there are perfectly normal Muslims who become extremist. But at the end of the day, that's the situation - we should continue doing things that piss off religious extremists if there's a good reason for doing so - say, allowing gay marriage - but not when there is absolutely no benefit whatsoever, to anyone, in that action. I wouldn't smear shit all over an altar, and nor would I burn a Qu'ran, because there is no point offending and upsetting people if no-one benefits.

[ElementMK]

Muslims cannot think for one minute that they can use brute force or threats of violence whenever they see these things in the world outside of their own homes. This just in: Most of them don't. The worst you'll get is a dirty look, and everybody has the right to those. It could explain why I get them on a daily basis.

The only thing that is destroyed with the Koran Burning is words on paper. Their destruction will not cost billions of dollars rebuilding infrastructure, no lives will be truly shattered, and no children will be orphaned.This is not a good comparison. All of those things you pointed out? Those are atrocious crimes. This is a matter of respect. Free speech only works when people are accepting of other people's opinions and beliefs. We should be capable of agreeing to disagree. The problem here is that instead of approaching fear with understanding, this pastor attacked his fear with hatred. The flag burners do the same thing, and are treated the same way. Sure, they may not make international news, but that's just how today's media works.

The best we can hope for is that American Muslims will speak out with disappointment, not vitriolic anger, in their words. Americans, regardless of their spiritual beliefs, understand the importance of free speech and other Constitutional rights. They also understand that the only way to uphold these rights for every person is to be the bigger person and shrug it off.

Even so, why should we subject them to this? The crimes committed nine years ago were done by a handful of disturbed men. There are over one and a half billion Muslims who had no part in this. They have denounced the work of these men, and many who have no ties to the United States have offered their condolences.

Peace requires respect, and respect requires understanding.

[Nabila_Ici]

...no, more wrong, because the only thing that is destroyed with the Koran Burning is words on paper. Their destruction will not cost billions of dollars rebuilding infrastructure, no lives will be truly shattered, and no children will be orphaned.



See, this is where I disagree with you. Perhaps none of this is going to happen in the USA, but can you imagine the turmoil it's going to cause in the Middle East? Sorry if I'm repeating myself, but people will be angry. Now I can't predict the future, but there are probably going to be riots and fights in the streets, and people will get hurt. Most people here aren't even going to take 5 minutes out to try and understand what is going on; all they'll understand is American's are burning Qu'rans, Americans are bad, and anything that has anything to do with America is bad. So buildings may come down, people may be attacked, and it's very likely that the people getting hurt aren't actually Americans either, but locals who work for American franchises, businesses or go to American schools.

What is he aiming to achieve? To scare off the terrorists? Because sorry, all this is doing is helping the terrorists. It gives them more material to brain wash ignorant youths with. I wouldn't be surprised if the anti-USA attitude over here grew because of this.

[HystericalParoxysm]

Except that everybody makes their own choices. If someone is an asshole but their actions don't directly harm or affect your daily life, the appropriate response is to shrug it off, call them an asshole, and get on with your day. If the reaction to burning a book is riots, murders, and so forth, that is an inappropriate reaction. It doesn't necessarily work as a cause-and-effect when the effect is disproportionate to the cause. It may be a predicted cause, and it may be a real asshole thing to do, but what individuals do in reaction is their own decision. If people don't take the time to understand and act out of ignorance and hatred, then that is their own stupid decision. The only thing that will -actually- be caused is for a small lump of cellulose and ink to be turned to ash. What people decide to do in reaction is up to them - and they're responsible for it, nobody else.

(No, I can't believe I'm defending this asshole either - I really don't think he should do it, but I do believe he should be -allowed- to do it, if that makes any sense.)

[Nekowolf]

I don't think I really have to say anything on it; I'm sure I'm well enough known for my position on it to be guessed.

Anyway, though, I know this is a bad idea for me to say, and it is partly out of utter irritation, but if he wants to burn Qu'rans, then hey, let's burn Bibles then! I bet he'll just love that, eh? And when he and his ilk go around bitching about it, hey, you want to burn one religion's holy text? Then eye for an eye. Because it's also our right to burn your holy text.

No, but really, what has to be done is it must be made known that these people are not representative of America as a whole. The problem people from those Middle Eastern regions might not quite grasp just the true extent of free speech in America, being they've never had it themselves. That it cannot be stopped by having the President simply stopping it, that it doesn't work that way. Nobody but themselves can stop it. We can protest it and condemn it all we want, but ultimately, nobody but themselves can stop it without violating a Constitutional right.

The only thing that is destroyed with the Koran Burning is words on paper. Their destruction will not cost billions of dollars rebuilding infrastructure, no lives will be truly shattered, and no children will be orphaned.
I have to completely disagree.

Who benefits the most from having pictures and video of the burning of Qu'rans? Terrorist groups. Just like when those pictures of abused prisoners were leaked. Who used them? Terrorist groups. They used them to recruit people, they used them as tools, this jackass is giving them material, is giving them motivation! So that they could point to this stuff and say "Look how much they hate Islam! We must fight against the vile Americans!"

[Nabila_Ici]

HystericalParoxysm; Yeah, he has the right to be an asshole. But if he had any common sense, there should be a little light going off in his head telling him it's not a good thing to be an asshole (at least, that's what I was raised to think), especially if he's going to be doing more harm than good. He may see the Qu'ran as pure evil, and it's his right to protest against something that he sees as unfair/corrupt/whatever, but why do it in such a moronic way?
Example: I could burn the American flag, it's not illegal here, and not a lot of people would object - I'm burning a piece of material, so what? Undoubtedly it would piss off so many people in the USA, and would just increase the anti-Arab feeling over there and who knows, maybe some idiot decides to go out and shoot someone who reminds them of the Middle East. It's just stupid not to think of the consequences before acting.

And I agree as well, that if people do act out of ignorance it's their own stupid decision - but you do have to remember that not everyone where I am has access to enough information to come to their own conclusions, it's not their fault really. But nonetheless, they wouldn't have to make stupid decisions if he didn't go through with his stupid decision (I hope that makes sense).

[paksetti]

Does anyone else feel the irony of this being carried out by a group that calls itself "World Outreach Center"?
I think I heard this about a week ago. There was a guy who got drunk and called a taxi. He asked the driver if he was Muslim, and when the driver said yes, the guy slit the driver's throat. Here's the kicker- the guy was a member of a group promoting religious tolerance.

The pastor is a dumbass and a bigot with a stupid looking mustache.

[Anyerfillag]

Not sure if anyone has seen it, but the planned burning is now not going ahead - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11255366. His reasons are weirder then why he decided to do it in the first place:

"Terry Jones said he was calling off the event after the group behind a planned Islamic centre near Ground Zero in New York agreed to relocate it. But the cultural centre's organisers said they had no plans to move it."

Don't know about you, but someone isn't telling the truth here.

[fakepeeps7]

Don't know about you, but someone isn't telling the truth here.

He's delusional, obviously.

[el_flel]

Perhaps none of this is going to happen in the USA, but can you imagine the turmoil it's going to cause in the Middle East? Sorry if I'm repeating myself, but people will be angry. Now I can't predict the future, but there are probably going to be riots and fights in the streets, and people will get hurt.See, I totally agree with this. Whilst it might not get an extreme reaction in the West, it is likely to in the Middle East because their religion is taken extremely seriously over there.

Does anyone know of/remember the controversy surrounding Salman Rushdie and his book The Satanic Verses? Wiki link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses_controversy). Basically (for those who don't know) Salman Rushdie is a British novelist who wrote The Satanic Verses back in the '80's which allegedly depicts Muhammad in a blasphemous and offensive way, and as a result this caused a huge uproar amongst many Muslims, particularly in the Middle East. Rushdie received threats of violence, had a fatwa issued against him and had to go into police protection for some months. In addition to that, people were injured and even killed during protests against the book, and it was banned in many countries.

There was no intention of malice or offence on Rushdie's part. The book didn't translate into Arabic well so it came across as though he was linking Muhammad to the devil in a way that he wasn't, and AFAIK most of the people protesting hadn't even read it.

I'm using this point to illustrate the kind of response that 'attacks' against Islam can elicit. It wasn't just Muslims living in the Middle East who reacted this way; it also happened in the West, and IMO what this pastor was/is planning to do is far, far worse than what Rushdie did.

[dadebabe09]

Who benefits the most from having pictures and video of the burning of Qu'rans? Terrorist groups. Just like when those pictures of abused prisoners were leaked. Who used them? Terrorist groups. They used them to recruit people, they used them as tools, this jackass is giving them material, is giving them motivation! So that they could point to this stuff and say "Look how much they hate Islam! We must fight against the vile Americans!"

Whether they have photos of radicals buring holy texts or Christians praying in their churches, Terrorist groups are going to find a way to use whatever we do that is not in sync with their beliefs as material for their motivation. Anytime I profess that Jesus Christ is my Savior, I go against Islam. Every divorce, every abortion, every infidility that is committed against a husband (not wife, btw), in America, in the Western Culture region, across the globe is material and motivation for Terrorists. It makes no difference; if you are not with them, you are against them. This line of reasoning is ludicrous.

I am not saying that it is right, but because of our Constitution, he has the right.

I would much rather be posting and petitioning and picketing and fighting for the poor lawyer woman who is to be (or maybe has already been) stoned in Iran for some really stupid thing...STONED...to death!!!???? In 2010?!?!?! What kind of judicial system issues that kind of sentence in the 21st Century? Who is going to do it? A collection of her peers? Our country has the death penalty, but at least it is "civilized"(?) But Stoning? Give me a break! The arcane beliefs and domcumented practices of some of these countries (sorry if they just happen to be Muslim) are incomprehensible to me half the time. I cannot believe anyone in their right minds would say anything in support of half the crap they do or believe in, let alone die for it in some extreme cases.

Oh, btw, to say that lumping ALL Muslims together as "Anit-American Radicals" just becasue 7 crazed lunatics caused mass terror on our country how ever many years ago it was, is wrong, but it is OK to lump 250 million Americans together as "Muslim haters" because 1 burns a Koran is absolute hypocrisy.

[Vanito]

I would not be suprised if they are purposely provocating muslims and exaggerate it so its easier to justify a new war againt the "muslims" later on, preferably on places where off course a lot of $$ oil is found.

When in 911 they showed photos of the so called terrorist later it was found out half of them were still alive in other countries, and they were not terrorists.

Whoever crashed the World Trade center, it seems very easy to blame it on supposed "muslim terrorists" who are suppsedly angry about burning quarans and start a new war again.

[ElementMK]

I would not be suprised if they are purposely provocating muslims and exaggerate it so its easier to justify a new war againt the "muslims" later on, preferably on places where off course a lot of $$ oil is found.

When in 911 they showed photos of the so called terrorist later it was found out half of them were still alive in other countries, and they were not terrorists.

Whoever crashed the World Trade center, it seems very easy to blame it on supposed "muslim terrorists" who are suppsedly angry about burning quarans and start a new war again.Next week on the Conspiracy Channel: Are American scientists creating false proof of new rocket fuel mixtures so they can fake another Moon landing?

Oh, and for the record: There's hardly any oil in the regions where we have been fighting. The amount of oil in Saudi Arabian and Canadian soil far outstrips anything they could produce.

[Lemon&Lime]

Oh, and for the record: There's hardly any oil in the regions where we have been fighting. The amount of oil in Saudi Arabian and Canadian soil far outstrips anything they could produce.

Of course. Just like NASA managed to land on the Moon several times. Even though in photographs of them on the moon, the flag is flying.... in a place where there is no wind. And when we live in a world where we have lots of independent journalists keeping an eye on things, despite the advances in technology, NASA fails more often then they apparently did back in the 1960s. I'm not saying I believe all the conspiracy stories I hear, but seeing a flag in the wind in a place where there is no wind... kinda looks a little bit fishy.

The infamous photo: http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.enquirer.com/editions/1999/07/18/flag_1024x768.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.enquirer.com/editions/1999/07/18/loc_the_moon_landing_30.html&usg=__KNOzpwG89Prdj1LFEJgFKbTlpOw=&h=768&w=1024&sz=125&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=XkcITYgGj2BQbM:&tbnh=150&tbnw=211&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmoon%2Blanding%2Bpicture%2Bflag%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D597%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=392&ei=3ASKTODNBpSoOOmz4esI&oei=3ASKTODNBpSoOOmz4esI&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0&tx=163&ty=92

But that's another debate entirely.

Back on topic, I'm happy he's finally called off the burning but I think the chances are it'll still go forward, he's just delaying it in the hope he'll get a deal. I wonder what's going to happen tomorrow, I'm at work most of the morning though so won't find out for ages :(

[Nabila_Ici]

Anytime I profess that Jesus Christ is my Savior, I go against Islam. Every divorce, every abortion, every infidility that is committed against a husband (not wife, btw), in America, in the Western Culture region, across the globe is material and motivation for Terrorists. It makes no difference; if you are not with them, you are against them. This line of reasoning is ludicrous.

No, you don't. And most Muslims know enough about their religion to know that. If they didn't, there would be a lot more people on the terrorists' side. And lolwut? Where is divorce wrong in Islam? Infidelity is wrong, for both a man and a woman equally. Just because in places like Iran, this doesn't seem to be the case, doesn't mean this is the religion's fault.

I am not saying that it is right, but because of our Constitution, he has the right.

As I said above, I have the right to burn the American flag if I see America as pure evil and it must be destroyed. But why do something so stupid in the first place? I'd probably get thrown in jail anyway, since my government relies on American funding to do pretty much anything.

What kind of judicial system issues that kind of sentence in the 21st Century?

Oh please don't go there. It's been little over 45 years since it was okay in your country for white people to hang black people for no reason. Women weren't treated so atrociously, but they didn't exactly have that many rights either. Just because you have moved past this, doesn't mean the rest of the world has. America has been a self-governing country for a much longer time than the Middle East, with little interference from other countries, whereas the whole idea of independence here is pretty much new, and the governments are constantly being told what to do by outside powers. They haven't had enough time to sit down and think 'hey, maybe what we're doing is wrong', they're too busy thinking 'we have to do whatever it takes to show the world they have no power over us'.

Oh, btw, to say that lumping ALL Muslims together as "Anit-American Radicals" just becasue 7 crazed lunatics caused mass terror on our country how ever many years ago it was, is wrong, but it is OK to lump 250 million Americans together as "Muslim haters" because 1 burns a Koran is absolute hypocrisy.

Where did anyone say that? No-one said it was OK to label all Americans as Muslim haters, but just as people lump Muslims together as American haters because of radical terrorists out of ignorance, people in the Middle East will also lump Americans as anti-Muslim because of one radical idiot out of ignorance. Both are wrong, but both happen/will happen.

Sorry if none of this makes sense, I'm trying to finish this off really quickly as I'm in a rush.

[Lemon&Lime]

I'd just like to add here that Muslims and Christians worship the same God but under different names. Muhammed is the name of a Christian prophet, and Jesus is the name of a Muslim prophet and vice versa. The only difference fundamentally is that each religion believe a different prophet is the Messiah/Son of God/True prophet. Both of them have Abraham in common, and the Old Testement in the Bible has similarities with the Koran I believe (correction?). Therefore true Muslims and Christians have nothing against each others religions if they are knowledgeable, as it is seen as different routes but leading to the same God.

[HystericalParoxysm]

Nabila_Ici - Where do you live? I know you've said "here" so I assume you live in a primarily Muslim country - but I don't see a location listed in your profile. Just curious - it's interesting to have a viewpoint like yours in this debate, in any case. :)

[kiwi_tea]

@Lemon&Lime That's an enormous oversimplification, and while it's a nice idea, the reality is that even Christian denominations make conflicting claims about the nature of God and of reality, let alone the differences between all the Abrahamic religions! These religions' definitions of God and nature are competing with each other, and can't easily (or perhaps ever) be reconciled. You might be interested to know that Jesus is also part of the Islamic mythology, as well as the Christian one, only in Islam he is just a minor prophet and not the son of god.

They can hopefully co-exist peacefully even while competing. But I don't have much confidence of that happening under Capitalism. Poverty makes for religiosity and war, and poverty in some large areas of the globe is an inherent outcome of Capitalism, essential for it to exist.

[Lemon&Lime]

@Lemon&Lime That's an enormous oversimplification, and while it's a nice idea, the reality is that even Christian denominations make conflicting claims about the nature of God and of reality, let alone the differences between all the Abrahamic religions!

It was my intention to simplify it. Your point about conflicting claims is a bit random, I was simply stating basic, child-level facts.

1. Islam and Christianity are related through prophets and Abraham.
2. Both worship the same God. (Although have slightly different interpretations; its argued for example that the Jewish/Old Testament God is different to the New Testament God, but thats too complicated.

[kiwi_tea]

A god only exists in its interpretations. The fact that the interpretations differ (and they differ a LOT actually) means that the gods differ. They worship different gods with a shared origin.

These aren't "child-level facts", they're well-intentioned distortions of fact.

[Lemon&Lime]

A god only exists in its interpretations. The fact that the interpretations differ (and they differ a LOT actually) means that the gods differ. They worship different gods with a shared origin.

These aren't "child-level facts", they're well-intentioned distortions of fact.

You better go and phone AQA and Edexcel then. They're teaching those children/college students incorrect facts. I learnt the things I've just posted while studying for my A-level in Religious Studies, and also my GCSE in Religious Studies.

My interpretation of you may be different to another user on this forum. It doesn't mean you don't exist or that I'm confusing you with someone else. (That's a one of the ways my teacher explained it to make it easier to understand).

[kiwi_tea]

I'm sorry, I didn't realise we were suddenly presuming ancient Middle Eastern people had actually had encounters with one verifiably existent god. In studying the Bible/Koran as literature we assume they are parts of a cultural tradition, not necessarily real. That's just crazy.

[jhd1189]

Before the conversation continues to veer off topic... please don't turn this into a debate on the finer points of theology. That's not really the point of this thread, and we have separate threads for exactly that purpose.

[Nabila_Ici]

Nabila_Ici - Where do you live? I know you've said "here" so I assume you live in a primarily Muslim country - but I don't see a location listed in your profile. Just curious - it's interesting to have a viewpoint like yours in this debate, in any case. :)

I live in Egypt. :)
Although religion doesn't have that much influence in the country (for example, the Sheikh of Al-Azhar mosque declared a member of the government think, I don't think I understood the story properly] a devil-worshipper, the government didn't really give a crap), it is still a big part of everyday life for 80% of the people.

[Lemon&Lime]

I'm sorry, I didn't realise we were suddenly presuming ancient Middle Eastern people had actually had encounters with one verifiably existent god. In studying the Bible/Koran as literature we assume they are parts of a cultural tradition, not necessarily real. That's just crazy.

That's looking at it from a non-religious prespective though. I can't believe you just said that Biblical people didn't have encounters with a God!

Anyway, I can't believe that this Koran-burning incident has become as big as it has in the media. The church only has 50 members I think?

[Nabila_Ici]

Anyway, I can't believe that this Koran-burning incident has become as big as it has in the media. The church only has 50 members I think?

Haha, I know! Like somebody said in the previous page, it's just some unknown guy and some unknown church trying to get their 15 minutes of fame.

I wonder if he intended to call it all off from the beginning, after getting all this attention.

[Lemon&Lime]

The thing is, I've been expecting him to do some preaching for his "type" of Christian faith to take advantage of the free advertising. But he hasn't.

No wait, he has been mentioning his book. ;)

[kiwi_tea]

That's looking at it from a non-religious prespective though. I can't believe you just said that Biblical people didn't have encounters with a God!

No, it's a neutral perspective. We don't know either way whether they encountered a god (although it seems unlikely, after all, if Tobit, Judith, and Job are sacred fiction, why not Abraham or Christ? Occam's razor.)

Keeping that neutrality, Islam and Christianity are making different claims about both their gods and the structures those gods rule over. As investigators we can't favour one god or the other, and we can't pretend they are fundamentally the same because they're not. Instead we acknowledge common historical origin for the god. Islam and Christianity are two sects worshipping different monotheistic gods that have a close historical relationship to each other.

[Lemon&Lime]

Should keep on topic, but just for kiwi_tea -

The religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are sometimes called "Abrahamic religions", because they all accept the tradition of the Torah that God revealed himself to the patriarch Abraham.

The theological traditions of all three religions are thus to some extent influenced by the depiction of the God of Israel in the Hebrew Bible, and the historical development of monotheism in the history of Judaism.

The "Abrahamic God" in this sense is the conception of God that remains a common attribute of all three traditions. In all of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, God is conceived of as as eternal, omnipotent, omniscient and as the creator of the universe. God is further held to have the properties of holiness, justice omni-benevolence, omnipresence.

[Nekowolf]

Okay. Christianity and Islam are child religions of Judaism. This is a historic fact. They are worshiping the same monotheistic God. They just have different ideas of that God. There. Now keep this atheist v. religion or what the fuck ever crap out of it.

Now back on topic.

Okay, so yesterday was fun. First he canceled it, saying he struck a deal with, ohhhh, what's his name, the guy in charge of Park51. The pastor said he got a deal saying Park51 would be moved. Then it turns out, no, he doesn't have a deal, and they never even spoke.

He said the event was canceled, and then, yes seriously, condemned any organization hereafter who would burn Qu'rans. There was another man there, uh, crap. I cannot remember these Islamic titles. Iman? Well there was one there with him, who said he got in touch with the guy who's running Park51's office, and set up a meeting between him and the pastor. He's the one who said the pastor was speaking on a matter of faith (see below).

Then the story changed that when he said that there was a deal to move Park51 , he was going on faith that he could convince them to move it, not that it was already done. The pastor made claims he was lied to.

Now the event isn't canceled, it's just being postponed.

[Nabila_Ici]

Now the event isn't canceled, it's just being postponed.

/headdesk.

I find it kind of hard to take him seriously now, though. Partly because I just googled him and his mustache makes me lol, and partly because he's clearly a blatant liar with a 'hidden' agenda.

[kiwi_tea]

You know, the more I think about this, the more uncomfortable I am. Initially I wanted the event stopped, but doesn't stopping the event also signal to Islamist extremists that threats of violence work to shut down peaceful (rhetorically horrible, and utterly racist, but peaceful) protest?

[Nekowolf]

Essentially, if it's shut down it doesn't matter. On one hand, Christian extremists win because prejudicial threats works. On the other hand, Islamic extremists win because, well, same reason really. It all comes down to violence. And already, there is violence over this case. The damage is done. It's basically now; how bad could it have gotten? And that's only if he really does not go through with it. If he does, well, we'll find out; our troops first-hand.

And if he does go through with it, I don't think I need to go into what that says.

Basically, the only thing that could have been done without serious repercussion was to never had have it brought up in the first place, sort of like Park51.

[kiwi_tea]

Wait, the Christians threatened violence?

[Nekowolf]

Extremists and threats do not always mean violence. The fact that they are protesting against Islam (they only mentioned Park51 AFTER some specific people (Boehnor and Palin) in the Republican Party tied Qu'ran burning to Park51), through the threat of burning the Qu'ran, as far as I'm concerned, makes them extremists.

[Lemon&Lime]

I think that burning the Muslim holy book could be construed as being violent. It's not exactly peaceful. It is blatently trying to incite hatred and some sort of reaction. If it was peaceful they wouldn't do anything directly to offend them, just stand somewhere with placards. That's my silly opinion anyway.

[Nekowolf]

Eh, yeah, I guess violent would technically work by definition.

[kiwi_tea]

Okay, no way.

Burning a book is NOT violence. So long as the book isn't stolen it's also not illegal. You don't arrest people for making a fire out of their own books on their own property, people have every right to do that.

It neither breaks a Muslim's leg nor picks his/her pocket.

We're not advocating a return to blasphemy laws here, are we?

The priest deserved to be mocked, scorned, criticised and pitied. But he is not advocating violence yet. He's advocating a peaceful protest for all the wrong reasons. We should be acknowledging his freedom to burn the Koran, Bible, or British flag at the same time as condemning his rhetoric. We're not fascists or theocrats here. Let's not pretend burning a copy of the Koran hurts anyone.

[Lemon&Lime]

It doesn't break a Muslim's leg etc but it certainly is blasphemy of the fouless kind to them. I think they'd considor that violent.

I enjoy the irony that in buying copies of the Koran, the priest is giving money to the Islamic community - perhaps even to build that ground zero mosque in some lond-winded coincidental way. That pleases me.

[kiwi_tea]

So? People say homophobic things all the time. I criticise them. I don't bomb them.

People bash agnostic atheists all the time. I criticise them. I don't bomb them.

My cat ruins my books all the time. I yell at her. I don't skin her.

Nobody has a right not to be offended, just a right not to be harmed.

[Nekowolf]

Violence:

"intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force"

"vehement feeling or expression"

Yes. Burning a Qu'ran is, by definition, violence.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violence

[Nabila_Ici]

Here's an example of peaceful protest. (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=799130b8e9) (Semi-graphic material, I think?)

I've seen similar advertisements on TV, unsurprisingly they're quite common. In my opinion, this is less likely to cause controversy and certainly aren't giving the terrorists any advantage. In fact, at the end of the advertisement is a quote from the Qu'ran condemning terrorism. It uses the terrorist's own weapon against them, and is less likely to give them another way of recruiting youths.

The pastor could've funded something like this, or started something similar rather than be extreme. But of course, it wouldn't get as much attention and/or interest.

[kiwi_tea]

That's a ridiculously broad definition Nekowolf. I'm offended every time the Westboro Baptist Church goes out and makes a scene, but I defend their right to do so to the death. I also defend the right of everyone in every place that values freedom of expression to blaspheme safely without fear of violent retaliation.

Frankly, I think we're talking about violence against people. Not violence against paper. Who cares if someone tears some paper. It can't be hurt!

How far down the road of "You can't do that perfectly harmless thing because I'm offended" do we want to go?

My vote is: Not one step.

[Nekowolf]

Well, then. Blame the dictionary. I didn't write definition up. Like I linked it's in the dictionary. It is, by definition, violence.

Is it the kind violence that we should outlaw? No. I never said that. I hate these fuckers, but unlike some people who would claim otherwise, I actually DO adhere to the Constitution.

Do not confuse my position on the subject, with a technical definition.

[kiwi_tea]

My point is that the violence is directed towards paper, not people. Sure. A violent act. In the same way slamming a door, ripping up a photo of an ex, or burning a flag is a violent act. I accept the technical definition, I just think in this context it's misleading. The Pastor hasn't threatened to do any harm to anyone.

[Nekowolf]

True. HE isn't threatening anyone. But violence WILL come to people. Not through him, but rather, because of him, because of his actions.

That's the problem here, that's where the argument of Constitutionality is at, because of his actions, there could be a direct causation of violence.

[Mia138]

The first thing that came to mind when I read the last few posts arguing whether or not burning the Qu'ran was an act of violence was that violence and abuse are both words with similar meanings. We all know and accept that there can be both physical and emotional abuse. In physical abuse a body is harmed..in emotional abuse there is no 'physical damage' but real emotional damage. Surely this is exactly the same thing - subsitute the word abuse for violence and its plain to see that burning something that is totally sacred to a group of people is 'emotional abuse'. Nothing gets broken but damage is done nonetheless.

[kiwi_tea]

No, an indirect cause. The blame lies with terrorists here, but they're obviously not under US jurisdiction. That fact alone shouldn't make us turn this into an attack on freedom of expression.

Look, I'm gay and I'm deeply opposed to hate speech laws. People are allowed their opinions. They're allowed to be bigots. They're allowed to burn a rainbow flag. They just can't touch me. Or hit me. Or hurt me. Nor am I allowed to hit or hurt them.

If I threaten to hurt them for homophobia, I'm to blame. Not them. I'm the one who needs to be stopped. Not them.

I'd be a hypocrite not to also take the same stance here.

[Nekowolf]

But it's not indirect. It is a causation. A direct causation.

He burns Qu'rans. Middle Eastern Muslims get angry. They start protesting against the US, with such incidences as throwing rock; which has already started.

That is a direct causation by his actions. Sure, he as the right, but that does not change the fact of what I just said.

[kiwi_tea]

So if someone burns a rainbow flag it CAUSES me to kill them?

[Nekowolf]

So you the ideal representation all people?

[kiwi_tea]

No. I'm illustrating a pretty general principle. It doesn't have to be me. That was pointless and irrelevant ad hominem.

[fakepeeps7]

My point is that the violence is directed towards paper, not people.

If that were true, he wouldn't just be burning the Koran. His issue isn't with the paper... it's with what it represents. He can't go around burning Muslims (though he might like to), so he's burning their treasured holy book instead.

[Nekowolf]

No. It wasn't pointless. Because as you do not represent humanity as a whole, as you are very distinct person, there are some who, yes, burning their holy text gives them cause for violence.

It gives them the motivation for violence. It gives them the anger for violence. You are generalizing that nobody in the world would ever do such.

You would be very wrong.

[kiwi_tea]

@fakepeeps

Still missing the point AND it's very presumptious to assume he longs to commit murder. He's rallying against a ideology that he thinks is evil.

He disgusts me. But he's not hurting anyone at all. Nor is he causing violence directly.

@Nekowolf


No. It wasn't pointless. Because as you do not represent humanity as a whole, as you are very distinct person, there are some who, yes, burning their holy text gives them cause for violence.

It gives them the motivation for violence. It gives them the anger for violence. You are generalizing that nobody in the world would ever do such.

You would be very wrong.
This is some extreme moral relativism going on here!

I guess we just accept FGM as well, because for some people it makes girls pure and proves their virginity?

No-one has cause for violence simply because they are offended. No-one. Not just me. No one.

I will not budge from that position because to do so is to condone horrors.

[fakepeeps7]

@fakepeeps

Still missing the point AND it's very presumptious to assume he longs to commit murder. He's rallying against a ideology that he thinks is evil.

He disgusts me. But he's not hurting anyone at all. Nor is he causing violence directly.

I didn't miss your point. I just don't understand it or agree with it. In fact, I think you missed mine.

I'm not assuming anything about his longing to commit murder, either. I don't know him. Hence, the word "might".

I think you're the one making assumptions here.

[Purity4]

burning their holy text gives them cause for violence. It gives them the motivation for violence. It gives them the anger for violence.

Yet, if they choose to act out that violence, what they do is 100% their own fault. And I think that is the point kiwi_tea is making, to choose violence is wrong, no matter how provoked someone feels.

[kiwi_tea]

My point is he's conducting a protest. At this point we have no reason to think otherwise. There might be empassioned rhetoric, but it's a big stretch to say there's implicit threat to harm people in this protest, just explicit threat to harm books.

If people want to kill over a harmless protest then they are the ones in the wrong. No-one is forcing them to kill.

[Nekowolf]

Yes, it's their fault, that is true. It is ALSO HIS fault. He, too, is to blame!

[kiwi_tea]

Why? He didn't do any harm.

He's a dick. That's true. But dickishness doesn't warrant violent retaliation.

He's to blame for hurting people's feelings. Well. So are a lot people.

[Purity4]

Yes, it's their fault, that is true. It is ALSO HIS fault. He, too, is to blame!

I disagree with that. 'It's his fault, he made me do it. Waaaaah!' Cause didn't you know, adults cannot be expected to have impulse control. :rolleyes:

[Nekowolf]

He's at fault because, yes, he helped influence people to violence. If I go around saying Muslims are evil, and them somebody goes and kills a Muslim because he believed what I said, we are both at fault, but for different reasons.

He's at fault for killing someone, I'm at fault because I have to take responsibility of what I said. This guy is at fault, because he has to take responsibility of what he did (or will do, if he actually goes through with burning Qu'rans).

To say that he is not at fault is leveraging that responsibility, of his actions, from him. It's basically saying, in no way could what he did possibly have influenced or inspired people to do violent acts. That is a very poor assumption.

[fakepeeps7]

By defending this guy's right to say whatever he likes, you're basically absolving him of any responsibility if his words and actions result in violence (from either side). Do I think resorting to violence over a book is an overblown reaction? Yes. But the people who would resort to violence don't see it that way. You might not agree with them, but you can't change their opinion.

Your basic position is to defend a bully. This pastor is a bully. This proposed act is one designed to intimidate, threaten, and belittle. And you're basically saying that if someone feels intimidated, threatened, or belittled by his act, it's their fault. These people have been taught to vigorously defend their faith, often with violence. We're up against entrenched cultural norms. Sure, they should be thinking for themselves, but they often don't. And that's not something that's going to change overnight... especially not if dumbasses like this pastor are going to provoke them.

If we don't want kids to bully each other, why do we put up with it in adults under the guise of "free speech"?

[kiwi_tea]

This guy has not encouraged anyone to hurt any Muslims yet. The minute he steps over that line, even implicitly, I'll be standing right by your side.

This proposed act is one designed to intimidate, threaten, and belittle. And you're basically saying that if someone feels intimidated, threatened, or belittled by his act, it's their fault.

Bull. I'm saying if they lash out in violence it's their fault. If they feel intimidated, threatened, or belittled they have a big non-violent weapon at their disposal: Their voice.

[Nekowolf]

No, it's the other way around! He's encouraged Muslims to attack us! Because they think he is representing America, they think he is speaking for us, they think he is expressing the American attitude towards Muslims!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39093323/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/

I dare you to tell me this guy's plan to burn Qu'rans did not influence this violence.

[kiwi_tea]

Of course it influenced the violence. But the violent are to blame.

What about animal rights activists who attack and kill meat farmers and animal researchers?

Are meat-eaters to blame for that? Are people studying cancers in mice to blame for that?

[Mia138]

I wish this discussion was taking place in a chat room type environment..its driving me mad having to keep waiting for the pages to refresh to see who says what next!

[Purity4]

This proposed act is one designed to intimidate, threaten, and belittle. And you're basically saying that if someone feels intimidated, threatened, or belittled by his act, it's their fault.

No, I don't tell people how to feel. I am saying that if a person chooses to be violent, then they are the only one responsible for the choices they make and the physical acts they choose to make with their body. So, if someone decided to get all violent, regardless of motivations, the violence they choose to commit is 100% their own responsibility. Personal responsibility is underrated.

[Nekowolf]

That is ridiculous analogy. Meat farmers are not provoking them!

If is say blacks are a inferior race, and then people who follow me go out and commit violence against blacks, of course I would be blamed for inciting it!

Same damn thing! What he is doing, is, while we can argue if it's protest or not, regard, it is most certainly provocation! Intentional or not, he is at fault for this provocation, regardless if he honestly was so stupid to not expect it!

[Mia138]

The point is...whether or not someone is at fault if he chooses to respond to this provocation with violence or if he chooses to ignore it...the situation only ARISES because of the provocation..so the Provocateur MUST have caused it. If he doesnt burn the damn book then the situation won't arise!

[kiwi_tea]

Really. You wouldn't say killing others is provocative?

[Purity4]

Neko, every single person in this world has their own brain and are capable of thinking for themselves. If they choose to be sheep and are blindly influenced by some idiot's rantings, and instead of thinking for themselves, decide to up the ante and go all neanderthal violent, they have only themselves to blame. Like I said before, we are all adults and have impulse control. If every time someone was incited by something, offended, or annoyed by something someone else said or did, and we ALL chose violence as a response. which you seem to imply is the only option, then there would only be violence every day, all day, involving everyone.

[Nekowolf]

@kiwi - Stop trying to turn this off track.

He's burning their holy text. They are getting REALLY pissed over it. He is provoking them, intentional or not, and they are responding.

@Purity4

But this wasn't just offense. This wasn't simply calling a stranger something inflammatory. He has scheduled, on the anniversary of 9/11, a mass burning of Qu'rans. This goes beyond mere jackassery. This wasn't spontaneous. This planned. That's the difference here.

It's one thing to simply, spontaneously, call someone something offensive. This reaches into a different area.

[HystericalParoxysm]

If I call you an idiot, and then you kill me for it, your reaction is unwarranted and inappropriate and my death would be completely your fault, no matter what I said. Same concept, different scale: a reaction of that sort is completely -wrong- based on the provocation and the person committing violence based on words or actions that don't directly harm them is in the wrong - even if the person that provoked the action was being a dick.

[kiwi_tea]

I'm not turning this off track. The analogy is perfect. Why the double standard?

I'm deeply, deeply, deeply disgusted to my very bones by people who farm and kill animals for meat (like my parents). I want the cruelty to end. Sometimes I'm furious when I'm at home and have to witness a home kill, even at a distance. It makes me totally sick to the pits of my liver and being to see others devalued and destroyed against their wills.

Am I justified in hitting my father? Should I punch him? Is it HIS fault if I punch him? You know I've been tempted.

[Nekowolf]

No. But if he waves a piece of meat in front of your face, and you hit him, he's also at fault.

I cannot possibly make this any fucking clearer.

Being. A. Jackass. Also. Makes. You. At. Fault.

[HystericalParoxysm]

I don't think it's a valid analogy either, kiwi. Comparing an act that takes a life - to one that does not - is different. There's all sorts of elements of what has a right to life, what it means to be sentient, do animals feel and think as we do, etc., wrapped up in that. A book is not an animal, not a life, nor are the concepts it contains.

Now, if your father was burning a book that was really important to you - or saying all fags will burn in hell (sorry, I don't know what else would really hit home for you) or something, that would be a valid analogy in this case.

[fakepeeps7]

If you've been brainwashed every day of your life with religious doctrine, you're no longer capable of thinking for yourself. If every one of us was, in fact, capable of thinking for ourselves, most religions would cease to exist. They tell people what to think, and some even go so far as to imply that if you dare to think for yourself, you're damned for all eternity.

The people who resort to violence do not think the way you do. Are they responsible for their actions? Of course. But who wants to dare to go against the grain? It's easy to sit in a country where freedom of speech and religion are completely acceptable (and even expected) and judge others for not thinking for themselves. But how long do you think you'd last if you acted, spoke, and thought the way you do here if you were over there?

Is violence acceptable and appropriate? No. But you're projecting your own values and expectations onto people who live extremely different lives. It's all they know. Continuing to say, "They're responsible, they should know better, they should think for themselves" isn't going to get anyone anywhere. It would be nice if that were the case, but it's not. You have to deal with problems by viewing the world as it is... not the way you think it should be.

[kiwi_tea]

So is everything that can possibly offend someone "being a jackass"? If a union is protesting their employment contracts and the employer is offended, are they jackasses who are to blame if he fires them?

The number of things people can be deeply offended by is pretty huge, and whether or not it's offensive is deeply subjective.

@HP - Fair call. I was trying to find something that seems as integral to me as religion does to others so that I could understand.

[Nekowolf]

You know what, fuck this. If you don't want to god damn get it, I'm out.

I'm going to go argue with my wall. I feel like I might finally be able to convince it that it doesn't really exist.

[HystericalParoxysm]

Chill and have a break, Nekowolf - it's a debate, everybody's not supposed to agree or it'd get boring. ;)

[kiwi_tea]

What I don't get is why we need to condemn a non-violent* protest just because we find it reprehensible. Half of what fakepeeps said ALSO applies to this pastor and his flock.

*using violent in the typical sense of 'violence against people' here, not in the sense that it's merely empassioned and provocative.

[Nabila_Ici]

Okay, you guys lost me a while back, but from what I understand the issue is whether he should be allowed to do this? If so, then this is what I think:

Yes, he should be legally allowed to go ahead with this. Law enforcement shouldn't storm in to stop him from burning the Qu'rans, it's his right, since he's not (physically) hurting anyone and hasn't stolen the books, or done anything illegal.

But he should also have enough common sense to not exploit this right, especially since he's fortunate enough to have it. If I recall correctly, freedom of speech/expression was meant to stop oppression rather than spark anger and hate. For example, there's no law which dictates that I can't call a person much larger than me a mother-fucking asswipe, but why do it if all it's going to do is piss off that person, and probably earn me a punch in the face? Sure, I may be remembered as the one that 'stood up' to this person by some, but I'll probably be remembered as the person that provoked that person for no good reason, and then was made to look like a fool. I have the right to insult them, but I also have enough common sense to realize I will be doing more harm than good, and everyone (myself included) is better off if I didn't do it in the first place.

[levini]

Wow You know whats funny ?
How we can go to other countries and tell them what to do yet we had a war when the British went and tried the same damn thing we are doing now I find that totally stupid how that dumb schmuck of a pastor thinks that burning the Koran is helping the world or helping to stop a war for that matter the only thing its going to do is kill our international relationships .

[Purity4]

Yes, Nabila, it's about freedom of expression. Unfortunately, not everyone is possessed with common sense.

[pinketamine]

I myself find that pastor intolerant and utterly stupid. And I can't see how burning the Koran benefits ANYONE. What will he win burning a book that is sacred for a lot of people? Just upset them and showing his own bigotry. Asides from that... I don't think he'll get anything back.

[kiwi_tea]

I agree pinketamine. The problem is that while burning the Koran doesn't benefit anyone at all, it doesn't hurt anyone at all either.

You've got to wonder how he can be so warped.

[dadebabe09]

I agree pinketamine. The problem is that while burning the Koran doesn't benefit anyone at all, it doesn't hurt anyone at all either.

You've got to wonder how he can be so warped.

Well, I am done with this. It sickens me that so few people are willing to admit that people in other countries continually desecrate American Flags and chant anti-American sentiment in front of national news cameras and no one has the balls to rise up against them. I have seen it time and time again on BBC World report and other broadcasts. What do we say? "Tisk, tisk." or "Well, that's just what they believe." or worse yet, "Now, what did we do to make you feel this way?"

You call him warped? Have you ever heard of the June 14, 1985 Hijacking of TWA Flight 847? Robert Dean Stethem, a U.S. Navy diver, was shot after he was severly beaten for hours then his body was dumped from the open door of the airplane, out onto the airport tarmac. I was 15 years old and I remember it like it was yesterday. They actually showed his body on the nightly news being thrown from the plane. What about the attack on U.S. Diplomats in Pakistan, March 8, 1995? Keyword - DIPLOMATS...Or what about the kidnapping of William Higgins, February 17, 1988? He was a U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel that was kidnapped and murdered by the Iranian-backed Hizballah group while working with the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organization in southern Lebanon. :( I could go on, but I digress!

The reason why I picked events that happend long ago is just to show that, long before 9/11, long before George W. Bush, Americans have been targeted for YEARS by these groups...picked out of crowds just because they are American (Robert Stethem, case in point), shot, killed, mutilated, threatend, harrassed, you name it. Were these people standing in the middle of the street burning sacred books or denouncing Muslim beliefs? No! Hell, the majority of them were on Diplomatic missions or with TRUCE Organizations!

This tree-huggin' hippie crap of Kumbaya and Peace and Love and all that is a bunch of bullshit!!! You go right ahead, hug away! But be careful of the ones in the puffy vests...you won't be around to share with the group how warm and fuzzy it made you feel. :cry:

“America will remain a target because we are uniquely present in the world, because we act to advance peace and democracy, because we have taken a tougher stand against terrorism, and because we are the most open society on earth.”

- President William J. Clinton, August 6, 1996

[shivarani]

I am really aginst burning kouran cuz Iam from iran and I am muslim too!I proud to say that I am from middle east!
I cant belive that there are some pepole who think that this is a good way to show that they are angry of the 11 sep evant!
kouran is a book about peace! :cry: :)
p.s sorry if i had alot of problems in my writing cuz I am not a native english speaker :D

[Nabila_Ici]

dadebabe09; I think you should read HystericalParoxysm's first post on this page. ;)

People in the Middle East burn American flags because they think the American government is oppressing them. And haven't you thought of the Muslim Americans? Don't you think they want to stand up to the terrorists, too?

And Islamic terrorist groups have not been the only ones to attack America. Take the Manuel Rodriguez Patriotic Front, they attack civilians and international targets, including U.S. businesses and Mormon churches and bombed two restaurants in the U.S. in 1993 (going back to the past, see?). Or what about the Alex Boncayao Brigade (not sure if this is a good example since I think they're probably Muslim)? They were suspected to be involved in the murder in 1989 of U.S. Army Col. James Rowe in the Philippines. Oh, and there's the Army for the Liberation of Rwanda, who in 1999 kidnapped and killed eight foreign tourists, including two U.S. citizens, at the Congo-Uganda border.

How does burning the Qu'ran stand up to these terrorist groups? It doesn't.

Also, attempting to 'advance peace and democracy' through war is such a good tactic, yes? Iraq looks like it's the new Vietnam.
I do not support what happened to the men in your post in the slightest, in fact, I am disgusted by it. But they were in the armed forces/the US government. They were attacked for what they represented, not because they just happened to be Americans and all Americans are evil. :/

[Lemon&Lime]

They also burn American flags because what business do America have being in Iraq any more now that they've shown there are no weapons of massive destruction? That's America's biggest fault; they think they have a right to nosey in everyone's business.

And by the way dadebabe09, I'm interested to know how you think the pastor is taking the highground by burning things too? You're saying that Muslims in Iraq get away with burning American things and it's its evil to do so because its disrespectful, yet its okay for Americans to do it back...?

And people do have the balls to rise against them. They're just knowledgeable enough to understand the wider context of these protests, and honestly? I think 9 times out of 10 they are provoked. I don't think they do it for something to do.

Also: Did you know that Americans are constantly accused of abusing Iraqi people - torture, humilation, etc. Many of them are also found to be guilty in America or by Military Courts, and sent to jail. Don't imply it's just the Iraqis who commit atrocities.

[Amtram]

A better analogy would be the shouting fire in a crowded theatre. Yeah, the person who does it is a moron, but the Constitution guarantees him a right to do it. However, he'll be prosecuted for false alarm, causing mayhem, sued by anyone who was hurt, etc. There will be consequences, but by no means should we impede free speech.

He's already passed the blame, stating that he knows it will inflame Muslims in Muslim countries, but stating straight out that if they react to his deliberately provocative act, they are 100% in the wrong.

That would be like the guy who yelled fire saying, "Hey, nobody HAD to run out! If they'd stayed put, nobody would have gotten trampled!"

Now, we have laws in the US that forbid all kinds of violent acts, but in Muslim theocracies, the act of desecrating a Koran is punishable by death. So in those countries, in that culture, not only is a violent reaction to this not condemned by law, but it's condoned.

The pastor KNOWS this. He's playing the game of "my god is better than your god," and counting on a self-fulfilling prophecy of violent reaction overseas to prove it.

So he's an ass, but we most certainly don't want to change the Constitution to criminalize assholery. We don't have enough jail cells.

[kiwi_tea]

No, that's an inappropriate analogy. Lying to people about a possible danger is totally different to offending some people. A more accurate analogy might be to insulting someone's mother ... when the mother is being horrible ... but insulting her out of all proportion and claiming she's "of the devil". Does that warrant a violent reaction?

Maybe to some people. Those people deserve criticism. They are being crazy. Acting out of all proportion.

We should be protesting the structures of Muslim theocracies. Not the way this pastor is doing so, no. But we certainly should say "If an American does something you don't like, we don't take that to mean offended Muslims are justified in their murderous rage."

We agree though that burning holy texts (and insulting mothers) is protected speech, however dickish. I'm just surprised that some commentators in the media seem to be edging onto defending the concept of blasphemy.

[dadebabe09]

They also burn American flags because what business do America have being in Iraq any more now that they've shown there are no weapons of massive destruction? That's America's biggest fault; they think they have a right to nosey in everyone's business.

Once again it is damned if we do, damned if we don't. If we stay out of it, it is "Why won't you help us? You have all the money and all the power! Please come to our aid!" Then when we go, all we hear is "...they think they have a right to nosey in everyone's business."

And by the way dadebabe09, I'm interested to know how you think the pastor is taking the highground by burning things too? You're saying that Muslims in Iraq get away with burning American things and it's its evil to do so because its disrespectful, yet its okay for Americans to do it back...?

No. If you read all my posts, you would see that I don't support the move any more than anyone else. But it is fortunate and unfortunate at the exact same time that in this country, people have the right to protest and have the freedom of speech. Do leaders and citizens from other countries admonish those who burn our flag? Are those persons met with death threats and threats to innocent people from that country who were not involved and do not agree with the act?

And people do have the balls to rise against them. They're just knowledgeable enough to understand the wider context of these protests, and honestly? I think 9 times out of 10 they are provoked. I don't think they do it for something to do.

So if I provoke you (as an individual), it is ok for you to threaten me with bodily harm, as well as anyone else who is American that, if you can't get to me, you'll just harm someone else to get to me? And once again, if 9/11 or the Invasion of Kuwait, or the disrgard of direct orders by the NATO Security Council, or planning a worship center for Islam three blocks away from where 3,000 Americans - white, black, Asian, Muslim, European, you name it lost their lives in the name of the same religion (and refusing to move it when it was met with such dismay) isn't/wasn't provocation, I really cannot imagine what would be.

Also: Did you know that Americans are constantly accused of abusing Iraqi people - torture, humilation, etc. Many of them are also found to be guilty in America or by Military Courts, and sent to jail. Don't imply it's just the Iraqis who commit atrocities.

Please give me an example of a group of American Citizens jumping on a plane or on a passenger ship or a subway, or where ever, and start picking off innocent people just because they are from a certain country. (excluding Timothy McVey, because we all are ashamed of that bastard!) Every country on the map has people that will do things to other people in the name of their cause. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." And who is more wrong can be debated all day long...but that is not the point.

My point is that throughout this whole thread, all we have heard is that "this guy is a dick" or "how can he be so stupid" or "he's just asking for it"! Why is no one condeming those that are threatening him? Why hasn't the outcry been, "No one is really listening to this guy, don't worry about it. Pray to Allah for his salvation and move on!" Especially those of you who are from Muslim countries, or are Muslim here in the United States...Why are you not lead to apologizing for the threats of violence and terror that has been promised like Hysterical was lead to apologize for all Americans for the actions of one?

The last thing I wanted to do was to defend his actions, because, believe it or not, I don't agree with them. But, I have been "provoked" to do so simply because I cannot stand the double standard!

[kiwi_tea]

@dadebabe09

All Muslims are not responsible for a group of terrorists who happen to be Muslim. All Christians are not responsible for Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates. All French people are not responsible for bombing the Rainbow Warrior.

Please give me an example of a group of American Citizens jumping on a plane or on a passenger ship or a subway, or where ever, and start picking off innocent people just because they are from a certain country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_George_Tiller

Islam doesn't necessarily make terrorists. Insanity, faith-claims, and intolerable conditions make terrorists.

[fakepeeps7]

There's also Elias Abuelazam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elias_Abuelazam). According to Wikipedia, he had a Christian upbringing. His victims were mostly black, so there could be a racial element there.

Another example is what went on in Northern Ireland.

You can't blame everything on Islam.

Islam doesn't necessarily make terrorists. Insanity, faith-claims, and intolerable conditions make terrorists.

QFT

[Mistermook]

David Gunn. Rev. Paul Jennings Hill. John Salvi. Eric Robert Rudolph. James Kopp. Lambs of Christ. The organization called Concerned Christians, deported from Israel for a plot to commit terrorism against a mosque. Scott Roeder. Hutaree.The Lord's Resistance Army of Africa.

Obviously all Christians are terrorists, and the Bible is a book that teaches its adherents nothing but violence. :rolleyes:

/sarcasm

...

I actually think that a more open-minded church in the area could accomplish a lot by staging a counter-protest Bible burning, making it clear they're doing it both to show the stupidity and hypocrisy of the Koran-burning church and remind everyone that whatever you believe, a book is just a book. I'm generally opposed to book burning just because I like books, but ultimately books are just vessels for the ideas inside.

[kiwi_tea]

Mistermook, that's actually a really sensible suggestion for a counter-protest. But you know the media would misrepresent it. :/

Damned journos. Never happy to just do their job well.

[dadebabe09]

David Gunn. Rev. Paul Jennings Hill. John Salvi. Eric Robert Rudolph. James Kopp. Lambs of Christ.

You do realize that NONE of these individuals have ANYTHNIG to do with this thread, right?

[ElementMK]

You do realize that NONE of these individuals have ANYTHNIG to do with this thread, right?They have EVERYTHNIG to do with the way the media misrepresents Muslims, and how that could be twisted right back to Christians. How hard is that to understand?

[dadebabe09]

They have EVERYTHNIG to do with the way the media misrepresents Muslims, and how that could be twisted right back to Christians. How hard is that to understand?

Whatever!!! So silly! Well, regardless, the boy backed down, chickened out, thought better of his decision, gave in... Muslim extremists - 1, Christian extremist -0. Congratulations. Turn off the lights and go home.

Peace out.

[pinketamine]

Apparently you failed at reading the names of christian extremists other people have given to you.

I would also recommend you to look for how many wars has US participated in in all its short story, how many dictatorships has the US goverment supported over the years and how many crazy extremists the have helped (here you can include Osama Bin Laden). If you think about it, I believe that some hate for US from countries that have "suffered them" is something pretty understandable. Anyway, I don't justify violence, specially when it affects to inocent people, and I do think that the idea of burning the Koran is disrespectful for many people. Some of the people who would get offended MIGHT be extremists/terrorists, but most of them would be just normal muslims, or people like me who find the whole "I'll burn this books because they are evil" pretty stupid, and totally against liberties.

[shivarani]

hey!
we are NOT terorists OK?
iranian people are really against to burn USA flag!
These are not our Decisions! :(
we really want to be your friend
that Priest should be embarresed!
Thank God! :)
they stopped him to burn kouran!

[Nabila_Ici]

If it really was his intention to call it off from the beginning after getting all this attention and upsetting so many people, I think I underestimated the funny-looking man.

[Lemon&Lime]

So if I provoke you (as an individual), it is ok for you to threaten me with bodily harm, as well as anyone else who is American that, if you can't get to me, you'll just harm someone else to get to me? And once again, if 9/11 or the Invasion of Kuwait, or the disrgard of direct orders by the NATO Security Council, or planning a worship center for Islam three blocks away from where 3,000 Americans - white, black, Asian, Muslim, European, you name it lost their lives in the name of the same religion (and refusing to move it when it was met with such dismay) isn't/wasn't provocation, I really cannot imagine what would be.

I said that 9 times out of 10 the people in Iraq etc who burn flags are/were provoked, end of discussion. Your point isn't disproving mine. And I think if for example you walked into my house in which I was having an argument with my boyfriend, and you jumped inbetween us and started telling me you can handle this better than I can - while stealing my "resources" such as my food and money and shooting all my pets, yes, I think I might just respond with a violent threat. Oh, and if you threatened to burn something that was dear to me, I might just burn something that's dear to you. Whether or not you like how they respond to things, its tough luck.

And did I just spot a reference to the planned cultural centre hiddne in there? You honestly think its part of some conspiracy to provoke Americans? How about a conspiracy to try to improve relationships with Americans? And don't forget Muslims died in 9/11 (as you pointed out) therefore the community centre is just as much a monument to them as building a church nearby as a monument to the Christians who died.

[Doc Doofus]

I think we should have a new rule: If you want to burn a book, you have to read it first. Really, I've read books that sucked that I wouldn't mind burning. If these ignorant bucktooth fundamentalists want to burn Korans, I say, fine, I'll give you the match to do it, as long as you read it first. If you still want to burn it, knock yourself out. But it's just too ignorant for words to burn a book you refuse to read yourself. It's like being proud of being ignorant. We should have an International Burn-a-Book-You-Read day.

[fakepeeps7]

I think we should have a new rule: If you want to burn a book, you have to read it first. Really, I've read books that sucked that I wouldn't mind burning. If these ignorant bucktooth fundamentalists want to burn Korans, I say, fine, I'll give you the match to do it, as long as you read it first. If you still want to burn it, knock yourself out. But it's just too ignorant for words to burn a book you refuse to read yourself. It's like being proud of being ignorant. We should have an International Burn-a-Book-You-Read day.

That's a good idea. But I still don't think I could bring myself to burn a book. Well, unless I was getting hypothermic and the only fuel source around was a copy of Breaking Dawn...

[shirablank]

The comparrison of burning the Qu'ran to burning American flags is one that I do not entirely get. For the two events to be on equal ground I would say you would have to compare burning the Qu'ran to burning the Bible, or burning the American flag with burning the Iranian flag, or perhaps a symbol of Al Quieda, if there were one that was well known enough to compare to the American flag. Burning the flag of another country is terrible too, the Americans who have nothing to do with this war, who are against it, do not deserve hate from overseas, but that does not mean it is acceptable to stoop to the same level.

Anyway, by burning a Qu'ran one does not only offend muslims in the middle east, but muslims all over the world. In fact, people who are not Muslim are angry at the proposition, because the person preparing to do so is so ignorant as to not even have read the book! The Qu'ran includes in it the old testement, why would a religious Christian man feel the need to burn a religious book in which his religion finds it's roots. Because he feels that he is sending a messege to terrorists? Why not burn the writings that encourage extremeism and violence then? The Qu'ran teaches peace, as does the Bible and the Torah, all three of these religions are very closely related and it saddnes me that there are people in each one who see the others as inferior. I know many kind and peaceable Muslims, some religious and some not, and I feel terribly about the prejudices they face.

Honestly, I would consider such an act a hate crime. To burn a religious text is to insult an entire people and I would be appalled no matter what religion the text hailed from. Burning this book to demonstrate an anger against a small portion of extremists is a huge insult to the rest of the religion's foolowers. I feel like such ignorance is an insult to any person who would not consider doing something so hateful. If someone proclaimed a Jewdaism evil in this way he would be declared a Neo Nazi and looked down on. It saddens me that this man feels support from so many.

He will do so much more harm than good if he goes through with this. I really hope that someone can beat some sense into him. It's such a rediculous idea. If someone who had any knowledge of Islamic extremism were to burn some extremist teachings as a gesture maybe I would understand, but of course those people are smarter than that, they actually DO something about these situations, instead of just screaming like a biggot with his head cut off.

Speaking of ignorance, I did not read every single other post in this thread (I know, I'm terrible), so I hope I'm not offending, or saying something that's been said fifty times too many, or coming off as being entirely misinformed. I don't want to get too far into the freedom of speech debate, as the laws here are different than in the States. However I do think there should be some limit to just how free speech is. And religious slander should probably be on the other side of that line, seriously, who does it help?

this generalization of Muslim people is, for lack of a better word, just plain stupid. Saying that all Muslims are terrorists is like saying that all Christians are members of the KKK. It's simply not true, and if you were to shout such an insult at a Christian I expect that he or she would not have many kind words for you.

Okay, so I repeated myself a good five times there.

PS. Hooray first post!

[kiwi_tea]

I clicked both "agree" and "disagree" on that post shirablank. I agree that his attitude towards Muslims is sickening. At the same time, I'm deeply uncomfortable with any suggestion that doing something that harms no-one, even if it insults some people, might constitute a hate crime.

A lot of things people do offend me. But they have a right to their opinions. I'd be deeply offended if people started burning The Origin of Species or 500 copies of Madame Bovary. Deeply. But I'd still defend their right to do it. And then I'd say "Hey, you're crazy. Why're you doing that? Man. You're just crazy."

[Lemon&Lime]

So kiwi_tea, by your logic, writing racist words/slogans using graffiti on a wall is NOT a hate crime. After all, it's not directly harming anyone (unless the paint was also sprayed into someones eyes).

In the UK it is considored a hate crime, and you can be prosecuted for doing that.

[Nekowolf]

UPDATE:

The story has changed yet again. This time, he said he definitely will not go through with it at all.

[paksetti]

By burning a book, you're not tying strings to someone's wrists and forcing them to retaliate.

People have free will, by the way. Burning the Qu'ran may make someone want to do something physically harmless like burn a flag or make an angry Youtube video, or even do something to harm someone else, but it's just stupid to say that they have no choice because someone kicked sand in their face.

Say it's muggy in the morning and you feel like shit- so you're grumpy and do poorly at work. It's not your fault, it's the weather! You have no choice but to piss and moan and refuse to do your job because you feel shitty. Muggy weather should be outlawed! Everyone should get the day off when the weather is bad! They can't help it- they're mildly uncomfortable!

[kiwi_tea]

Lemon&Lime: Absolutely. Not a hate crime. Vandalism, maybe. Prosecute it under that law.

[Mistermook]

Lemon&Lime: Absolutely. Not a hate crime. Vandalism, maybe. Prosecute it under that law.
Maybe it is a hate crime in the UK and Europe. I don't know enough about European laws really to confront anyone on it unless it has to do with an international treaty or something. I suppose, given Europe's history, I can understand a bit of draconian limitations of free speech even. They've obviously made a history of violence that supports it for a long longer than the US has even been in existence.

It's absolutely not a hate crime in the US though, it could prompt a hate crime statute if the person committing the vandalism also committed another, more serious crime.

IANAL, but in general hate crime in the US works this way:

Billy calls Phil a n*gger. This is not a crime.
Billy gets a swastika tattooed on his chest. Not a crime.
Then he beats up Phil, who is black, and his swastika tattoo and history of hate speech make his crime of battery also a hate crime charge which means that instead of being up for parole in three months for being a violent jerk he's sent away for three years before he's up for getting out because he's also being violent for offensive reasons.
In no instance is the speech (as in free) itself forbidden or even come into question until it's used as a consideration as to whether or not it was the rationale for another crime.

Individuals, usually as in businesses and organizations, in the US can have different, noncriminal, definitions. The ISP that the Koran-burning pastor used canceled the church's service on the grounds of "hate speech" being forbidden by its terms of service, for instance. Having a swastika tattooed anywhere on your body is probably legitimate grounds for dismissal from any job in the country, including the Federal government, on grounds of creating a hostile work environment for a minority (which could be the basis for a discrimination case against the workplace).

The church burning religious books is completely within its legal rights to do so, though if any members of the church later on go on to commit acts of violence against Muslims I'm guessing they'd all run afoul of anti-terrorism laws.

[shirablank]

Are there laws about vandalizing religious texts though? For something so meaningfull, historic, and sacred to many people I feel like perhaps there should be some sort of law against desecrating them.

Also my World Issues teacher made an interesting point today indirectly. We looked over an article concerning the aftermath of those Muhammed cartoons published in several European and North American papers some time back. Small offensive gestures, especially ones concerning a widespread religion, often recieve a completely disproportionate reaction. I would hate to see the reciprocations of something like this.

[el_flel]

This event would be classed as a crime under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, which would mean it would be a hate crime in the UK.

[kiwi_tea]

Are there laws about vandalizing religious texts though? For something so meaningfull, historic, and sacred to many people I feel like perhaps there should be some sort of law against desecrating them.

So what you're saying is that people's religious rights should trump others' property rights? How will this affect artists?

I have a big crucifix with Jesus in sparkly drag wearing a pink feather boa on my wall. Should I be prosecuted for having a sense of humour?

[pinketamine]

Are there laws about vandalizing religious texts though? For something so meaningfull, historic, and sacred to many people I feel like perhaps there should be some sort of law against desecrating them.


There are no laws about vandalizing other books, so I don't see why religious books should be considered more important than non religious ones.

[geallach]

This is not just about a book; the book is symbolic of a religion, something that many people hold so dearly, something that is part of their everyday life. You cannot compare a religious text to a book someone really enjoys, even if they chastisingly claim that they "worship" it. True, saying or writing the "n" word does not in itself hurt anyone, but the word as so much hatred and history behind it that it is something I would never do. People are, to a certain extent, protected if something is offensive to their race,nationality gender or sexuality, or at least their offence is taken seriously, but religious people do not have that protection in most societies, because religion is not considered to be important by anyone outside that religion. Is that fair? A lot of people would say, yes, that is perfectly fair, religion does not compare to race or gender. It is only something that many people identify themselves with and which is part of their lives, after all. Why should burning something so precious to them offend them at all? It's free speech people!

*Sigh*

I believe that people should not feel that they will be abused because of a part of their identity. Free speech taken into account, there is no reason to use the "n" word at all, unless the person who uses intends to hurt or offend, because, like it or not, people do find it offensive, and everyone knows that. There is no reason to burn a religious text unless the person burning it intends to send a message of hate to the many innocent poeple who practise that faith. I could easily burn a religious text if I wanted to, but why would I? I respect a person's right to believe in a religion, and I do not want any religious person to feel uncomfortable with their faith because there are narrow-minded individuals in the world who think they should, or think that their right to their beliefs and not to have those beliefs attacked and ridiculed are not important. The fact is that Muslims would be offended if someone publically burned the Qur'an, and why shouldn't they be? The Qur'an is sacred to them, not just some book they like! Anyone who has never been at the receiving end of discrimination cannot, even if they are against it, really understand what it feels like, and people who are not Muslims cannot understand just how precious the Qur'an is to them, so you cannot judge them if you think they are being too sensitive about it.

Okay, if it did happen, there would be those who would lash out, but what about all those other Muslims who would just be deeply, deeply hurt that someone hated them enough to do this? What about their feelings? Why shoudn't they matter?

Of course, people should have free speech, but what about having some damn respect for your fellow man? That is not too much to ask of free speech.

[pinketamine]

I believe that burning the Bible can be considered as offensive as burning The Origin of Species. Of course I was not comparing the Koran with Twilight.

I don't agree in burning any book, and I find it a bigot and stupid action to do, which only has the purpose of offending the people who identify themselves with a particular book because it is part of their own lifes.

[Mistermook]

Are there laws about vandalizing religious texts though? For something so meaningfull, historic, and sacred to many people I feel like perhaps there should be some sort of law against desecrating them.
You can't vandalize your own property. If you bought something you're allowed to destroy it except for allowances of breaking other statutes. You're allowed to burn the flag, crap on the Bible, paper your bedroom in Ayn Rand, and make mocking artworks based upon Shakespeare to satisfy your heart's desire. The law makes no distinction in this.

You can run afoul of strict regulatory issues about how you're allowed to set fires within municipalities if you're a wannabee book-burner in the US, and once you start talking about burning anything that belongs to someone else you're definitely looking at charges like arson and vandalism.

The bottom line is that the US is nowhere near the coherent country that nearly anywhere else in the world is. I don't know exactly how many different religions are present in the US, or political persuasions, or specialized sexual fetishes, or hate groups, or whatever, but there's enough people existing more or less peacefully with very, very different ideas about what's important to them that if we were forced to police the sensibilities of each and every person we'd be criminalizing an even greater percentage of the country and trampling upon a Constitutional right we thought was so important to democracy we put it at the very beginning of the list.

The very ideal that protects Muslims in the US, regardless of public sentiment or majority outrage, is the same one that protects people who might want to burn the Koran. Or the Bible. Or a Bill O'Reilly poster. Hell, if Muslims are pissed off because a Christian church is burning their religious texts I'd encourage them to burn the Bible in protest back.

That's part of how this whole notion of free speech is supposed to work, even though it's starting from a position of slapping each other in the face I guess. It's about protecting the dialog between conflicting ideas, and forcing people to confront them and encouraging them to communicate about them rather than slap legislation on the issue and imprison people who think differently than you do. Change people's minds, and I'm not saying that just at Muslims, but for Christians or anyone else for that matter.

[geallach]

Yes, I agree, someone who sets out with the intent of offending someone does indeed think differently from me. I am not talking about tiptoeing around everybody else, I am talking about someone doing something that they know will cause hurt and offence with the full intention of doing so. No, you cannot police what everyone does or says, nor should you, but if someone thinks or believes something different from you, you should have the common sense to respect their right to do so, even if you strongly disagree. I am not talking simply about laws, I am talking about minds, and yes, it would be better all around if people did just communicate rather than attack one another's ideas, but the intolerant, like this pastor, will always believe that they are right and that anyone who thinks differently from them is wrong. Intolerance is the problem, not laws. Muslims burning the Bible in response would not prove anything; two wrongs do not make a right, it is just sinking to their attacker's depth.

[Doc Doofus]

Shira, American laws give an absolute right to burn books, as long as you own them. It's considered Freedom of Speech, under the First Amendment of the Constitution. So we can't do anything to stop it. I'm not sure I would try to stop it legally, either.

However, if it offends you, I think tit-for-tat would be appropriate. Get a pile of Bibles and burn them, stomp on them, whatever, and put it on Youtube. Just follow my new rule, though, and read it first, if you want to be better than them. Set a precedent!

They are just books. The real message the Koran-burners are trying to send Muslims is, "We hate you, hate you hate you, we want to insult you, we're dumb and we're too stupid and impulsive to think things through any further than that. And we're proud of being this way."

[Black_Barook!]

The problem people from those Middle Eastern regions might not quite grasp just the true extent of free speech in America, being they've never had it themselves.

*Face desk*
*Desk floor*
*Sigh*

Really? You honestly think that the Arab world never had democratic governments? That all Arab states today are autocratic? That just because we're not a Jeffersonian democracy that we can't make our views heard? Really?

I need to get another desk.

P.S. I love how everyone is defending Islam and then insulting the followers by stating they'd go on a rampage because of something like this. *Sigh*

[kiwi_tea]

Black Barook!, the truth is that a small number of Islamic followers WILL go on a rampage over this sort of free and harmless expression. Not all Muslims, and there are countless Muslims who will say this violent reaction is based on a wrong interpretation of Islam. Fair enough. The suggestion that all Arab states are autocratic is flagrantly ignorant. You're correct.

Personally, I criticise Islam just as I criticise other baseless, ornate faith-claims, but I defend everyone's right to have their religion, and everyone's right to burn their own property.

[Black_Barook!]

Black Barook!, the truth is that a small number of Islamic followers WILL go on a rampage over this sort of free and harmless expression.

A small minority that I'm glad to say I keep in touch with so that when they even get an iota of doing something idiotic I'd smack them upside the head. *Sigh* The annoying thing is the more idiots like the Pastor and those anti-Cordoba House folks pop-up the harder it is to fight extremists. I just hope this religious intolerance won't sweep through Kuwait...or we're screwed.

[Nekowolf]

@Black_Barook!

Did I ever say that? No. But please, DO tell me of one instance where they had the same level of freedom of speech we have in America within the Middle East that is in recent memory.

[Black_Barook!]

@Black_Barook!

Did I ever say that? No. But please, DO tell me of one instance where they had the same level of freedom of speech we have in America within the Middle East that is in recent memory.

Did you flat out say it? No. But it was heavily implied. I won't speak for other countries in the Middle East, but I will for Kuwait: Freedom of Speech is a right to all citizens of Kuwait. The only limitation is that there is no slander towards any religion, and that the current ruler is not attacked (Though the second he's no longer the ruler you can rip him to shreds)

[Vanito]

I do not advocate sending general hate messages like burning the quaran, since it apparently means a lot to muslims and also insults all muslims including those who dont do harm. I am not too fond of some things the muslim religion promotes, and acts out (or which other religions promote and act out) but the proper way to deal with that would be to discuss the issues and the problems a religion causes, and go after that. Not to burn the book. Thats just a message of general hate and does not solve anything.

I am tired of all the general anti-muslim propaganda, of Geert Wilders, of anything that exaggerates upon the point it loses all touch with realism. Yeah the islam causes issues, and many things which are blamed on the islam also happen in christianity etc. Also a lot of drama is just dumped on the islam. Just like 2nd generation "muslims criminals" do a lot of criminality not because of the islam but because their parents didn not raise them well and they have been quite chanceless in a country which language they don't even speak. Their anti women and gay crimes probably are islam related and shoud be handled, but once again a somewhat proper education starts with the parents.

Burning the quaran does not help or fix anything. Instead it is lowering down the hate level those people say to dispise. All this is just provocating friction. It lost all purpose beyond any sense.

[Nekowolf]

"But it was heavily implied."

No. No it wasn't. You thought up of that implication. The simply truth is that many Middle Eastern nations can be fairly restrictive. They may not understand our culture and our laws, or just how much freedom we really have.

That is what I said. And meant. /end.

[Lemon&Lime]

Lemon&Lime: Absolutely. Not a hate crime. Vandalism, maybe. Prosecute it under that law.

It is where I'm from. Here in Europe we don't believe in "free speech at all costs". And by the way it won't be vandalism as its their own property, so you couldn't prosecute them for it if they brought the Koran's themselves.

You cannot have freedom of speech + peace without enforcing a few laws.

Calling someone racist names, getting caught distributing racist propaganda etc can all be punishable by everything from a fine to being deported back to their country of origin. This is how we avoid having extremeists in our country, and the fact that USA does not have similar laws might explain for the greater amount of racial tension they have over the pond. If everyone is just allowed to do and say whatever they want, it's going to stir things up.

[kiwi_tea]

No. This is how you criminalise thought arbitrarily. I can't believe a developed nation would even do that!

What do such laws even do except give bigots a justified martyr complex?

They don't stop bigotry, they just sweep it under the carpet where people won't/don't have to confront it. They make the issue worse, they don't solve it.

You can't criminalise opinion successfully.

[Lemon&Lime]

We can and we do, end of discussion. Go email our Prime Minister or something.

Our country and our laws are much older than USA's. As a nation we are more experienced at international affairs and laws relating to things which may cause friction between nations.

It's something I find rather odd about Americans. Free speech at all costs! No, you cannot have free speech without laws in place which define how far you can go. Otherwise it will be perfectly legal for example to accuse people of being paedophiles without evidence - that would involve whether that person has the "right" to say such things. Same for some Christians to start distributing leaflets about how Muslims are child-eaters or something ridiculous.

You cannot have fair and honest free speech without restrictions. You cannot have world peace without first preparing for war. One is a tried and tested fact, the other is a well-known paradox and phrase.

[kiwi_tea]

America does not have free speech at all costs. It has numerous sensible restrictions on free speech.

It is perfectly illegal to accuse someone of being a paedophile in the USA because you can't libel someone without proof. Christians should be allowed to accuse Muslims of child-eating, and Muslims should be allowed to defend themselves by pointing out that they don't eat children and that the small group of Christians is crazy. How many people take the Westboro Baptist Church seriously?

Adults resolve stupid arguments with good arguments, not with the beginnings of Fascism.

[Nekowolf]

@Lemon&Lime

You have to understand where come from. The idea of such a high level of freedom of speech has been with us since our creation as a separate nation. Uh...I really can't think of an appropriate analogy, but, what it is to us, I guess, is like what the Queen is to you?

It's something absolutely inseparable from our identity as a nation, and our philosophy. It is something so profound to us, something that we fought for with blood and pen.

Lastly, the thing is, about it being..."fair and honest." It is, really. Because it is so broad that it covers everyone. Everyone is usually allowed to say what they want, yes, but that also means others are allow to criticize them just as much. It's fair and honest in its indifference. Though there are some things that are not allowed; incitement of violence, disturbing the peace, etc.

[whiterider]

As far as I know, there are no countries in Europe which have criminalised being racist, or homophobic, or anything else. Nor is it criminal to express your views - as long as you do it in an appropriate manner. If you want to talk about your idiotic ideologies with your friends and family, fine. If you want to bring them to a public debate - fine. If you want to set up a website espousing your crap, then your hosting company may not allow it, but legally it's legitimate. What's banned is expressing prejudice and hatred in a manner which is clearly meant to be inflammatory, or hostile - in the UK, most of the instances wherein someone has been convicted of hate crimes are what I would term causing a disturbance of the peace, or inciting violence.

I do understand the argument for wider freedom of speech - ideologically I agree; but pragmatically I don't. If it were demonstrated that racist graffiti or heckling very commonly leads to racial violence, which would be more worth protecting - the freedom of speech of those hecklers, or the life and limb of that minority? I'd choose the latter any day.

Of course, this isn't such a case - we don't know what would be most likely to happen if the plan to burn the Qu'rans had gone ahead, and the fact that it would have lead to some variety, currently unknown, of violence, probably, is not enough to justify a legal intervention. If it had been done twenty times before, though; each time with the same serious results - then I'd consider banning it.

[geallach]

Whiterider is right: the conviction of people in the UK for commiting serious hate crimes with the intent of inciting violence is hardly Fascism, it is the desire to protect innocent people from that violence. Calling black people n*****s is not an opinion; calling gay men f****ts is not an opinion; burning a Qur'an is not an opinion, it is something done with the intention of causing hurt to others.

[fakepeeps7]

You seem very wise, geallach.

[kiwi_tea]

Causing insult is distinguishable from causing hurt. whiterider, don't you think drawing that line between actual violence and non-violent opinion is quite important? You must confess you're putting a foot down onto a very slippery slope?

Should a pastor who preaches anti-gay religious beliefs be prosecuted under hate crimes legislation? Although not explicit, it can certainly function as an incitement to violence.

Why aren't we satisfied to prosecute only explicit incitements to violence? Isn't too hard to categorise what an implicit incitement to violence really is?

Everyone seems to think Pastor Jones was implicitly inciting violence, but given the wider Christian rhetoric he has used, I sincerely doubt that was his intent. It was the effect, I realise. But I think he intended a peaceful (and bigoted, divisive and disgusting) protest.

geallach - Offending someone is NOT the same as hurting them. Or even encouraging people to hurt them. I am personally offended by religion - I think it's self-abuse, to be perfectly honest, and that it has a nasty habit of spilling over into communal abuse. I feel religion, as a mode of thought, is bigotry against reality and humanity. It's burning the book of the human brain. All the same I would never, ever, ever presume my offense was a basis to outlaw religious speech - whether it's homophobic, misanthropic, or just anti-empirical.

[whiterider]

Yes, I do think it's important to draw that line.

No, I don't think it's a slippery slope. How much difference is there between distinguishing, legally, between accusing someone of a crime and accusing them of being a dick, and distinguishing between someone being hateful and them inciting violence? We manage the former well, in most cases; so why not the latter?

[fakepeeps7]

kiwi_tea, you're splitting hairs. Offending someone can include "hurting" their feelings. Maybe you're a robot who doesn't care what other people say to you, but many of us have been hurt by the words of others.

If you want to use a purely physical definition of "hurt", that's your right. Just be aware that the rest of us are using a broader definition.

hurt:

1. To cause physical damage or pain to; injure.
2. To cause mental or emotional suffering to; distress.
3. To cause physical damage to; harm.
4. To be detrimental to; hinder or impair.

[kiwi_tea]

So getting back to Pastor Jones specifically, I agree he's hurting people's feeling, ie. causing offense. Lots of things cause offense, though, don't they? People could very well look at my opinions on religion above and see a "Koran-burning" in them, where I see a "Koran-burning" in the act of religiosity itself. Hurt feelings shouldn't really be classed as a kind of hurt we legislate against, right? Because how far down that slope do we go? Do we legislate against a Pastor burning a Koran? Do we legislate against a Biology Professor putting a nail through a piece of communion bread?

What are the limits of harmless behaviour?

Do we, in effect, reinstitute blasphemy in law? Why?

How much difference is there between distinguishing, legally, between accusing someone of a crime and accusing them of being a dick, and distinguishing between someone being hateful and them inciting violence? We manage the former well, in most cases; so why not the latter?

Do you feel that Jones was intentionally inciting physical violence? Because I honestly don't see any evidence that he was, and I do see some evidence that he wasn't.

Edit: Is Jones the one in the wrong? What about the clear intolerance of his opinion - to a murderous degree? I think his opinion is awful. I also think, like many awful opinions, we tolerate it. We criticise. We don't get all KILL ALL HUMANS over it.

[el_flel]

It's not about inciting violence; it's about inciting religious hatred. A crime doesn't need to have a physical component in order to be a crime.

There's also a huge difference between having, and stating, an opinion on religion, and purposely doing something to cause huge offence to members of a religion.

ETA: the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 also covers atheists, it's not just about covering the religious.

ETA (again):
Hurt feelings shouldn't really be classed as a kind of hurt we legislate against, right? Well, yeah they should, which is why there are laws against harrassment and non-physical abuse.

[kiwi_tea]

Again. I agree, he's inciting religious hatred. You know what. I hate Scientology. I hate aspects of Islam and Christianity. I also hate racism, sometimes racism has a religious basis. Often homophobia has a religious basis.

I hate homophobic religions. Hate them. Don't outlaw them, even though they certainly contribute the deaths of gay people (especially gay teen suicides). Just criticise them.

Do people not have a right to hatred? Is righteous hatred always a bad thing? I think Pastor Jones has a right to his hatred. I also think it's totally, totally misdirected and we should all criticise him, and if he's immune to criticism we should collectively mock him instead.

The one thing I don't think we should outlaw is his peaceful protest. We should be directing hatred and criticism towards one small aspect of Islamic culture, accurately, without Paster Terry Jones' bombastics. And at the same time, extending an olive branch to those many Muslims who believe in non-violent resolution.

Well, yeah they should, which is why there are laws against harrassment and non-physical abuse.

Is this harrassment though? Is it non-physical abuse?

I don't think it's either of those things. If we accept that this is either of those we make the definition WAAAAAAY too broad.

[geallach]

True enough, being hurt and offended are not the same thing, but the examples I gave are both emotionally hurtful and offensive. I also agree that it can be difficult to prosecute someone for inciting violence when the case is not clear-cut. That is for the courts of the UK to decide, not you or I, based on the evidence presented to them. While, for example, calling a gay man a f****t is a non-violent thing to do, for that man, having that abusive, highy-charged term used against him is certainly both hurtful and offensive, and one which he should not have to hear from anyone, because it is not a considered opinion, it is just vicious abuse. But again I am not talking about laws, but minds; people should not use the term, because (a) It is known to be a highly offensive term and (b) There is no justifiable reason to use the word, unless the intent is to offend.

I don't know how you can find religion to be offensive, if that is what someone believes then they are entitled to do so, but it is your opinion and you are entitled to it too. I am certainly not going to argue with you about it, or I will go completely off-topic, and this is the wrong thread for that anyway.

Back to the topic, I heard that though this particular pastor did not burn the Qur'an, others in America have done so, and there has been protests against this. Is that true?

[el_flel]

Yes of course people are allowed to hate. What they shouldn't be allowed to do is use that hatred as a reason for causing harm to anyone - whether that's physical or emotional harm. Pastor Jones is using his hatred of Islam to cause deep offence to millions of people.

EDIT: Is this harrassment though? Is it non-physical abuse?

I don't think it's either of those things. If we accept that this is either of those we make the definition WAAAAAAY too broad.I think it could be classed as abuse, although I don't think either of those definitions are particularly relevant to this case. I merely brought them up because you stated you didn't think we should outlaw behaviour that causes emotional harm.

[kiwi_tea]

I agree though, that people shouldn't use the term. I just don't think we need to criminalise people who call other people "faggot". I've been called a faggot. My reaction is almost invariably to think to myself quietly, "Why yes, I do believe I am."

It is certainly abuse. I agree. Is it criminal abuse? Maybe if they followed me down the street yelling the word - that'd be harrassment - or if they started throwing bricks through my window with the word "faggot" on them. Harrassment again.

If they gather in a field somewhere to read the Bible and burn a rainbow flag, I don't deny, I'm disturbed and HIGHLY critical. But hell, if it's their flag and their field - or even a public field - they can enjoy their perverse little picnic. They're idiots. Touch one hair on my head, though, and I'm calling the cops. That's my right. I am protected, by the law, from their hatred.

No-one law can or should protect from awareness of their hatred. Just like no law can protect them from awareness that I hate their opinions too.

Yes of course people are allowed to hate. What they shouldn't be allowed to do is use that hatred as a reason for causing harm to anyone - whether that's physical or emotional harm. Pastor Jones is using his hatred of Islam to cause deep offence to millions of people.

So?

Are all these millions of people too childish to ignore him? All too childish to say, "What a horrible, stupid man!" The Pope offends millions of people every moment he opens his dirty mouth!

[el_flel]

It's not childish to be offended by someone burning your holy book, and it's not something that can just easily be ignored.

He's inciting hatred. It's illegal here. I agree with it for reasons I've already given. There really isn't anything more to say.

[kiwi_tea]

I didn't say it was childish to be offended, I simply implied it was childish to start shouting "MAKE THIS MAN'S OPINIONS ILLEGAL"

Well. Then he actually IS being persecuted, isn't he. That'll really help matters. Like... ...a whole heap.

Edit: Come to think of it, if he has no legal right to express his opinion, aren't you drastically increasingly the likely of violent expression? I mean, once your opinion is illegal, what's stopping you from breaking a few more laws in your - quite legitimate - fight for freedom of speech?

I mean, what an efficient way to create a hidden cesspool of opinion bursting to escape in any manner no matter how horrible.

Why give them the excuse! Why give them a just cause?

[el_flel]

But it's not his opinion which is illegal - it's his behaviour and actions which are.

[kiwi_tea]

IE. It's his non-violent expression of his opinion. His harmless actions are illegal. Next it'll be illegal to give a church sermon at all, he thinks. Heck, he's half right at that point.

He can hold it. He just has to keep it hidden.

No. Let him speak and be mocked. Let him burn Korans and see the non-violent outrage at his burning stupidity. Let him hear a sane response, in the vain hope that he's listening.

[el_flel]

But they're not 'harmless actions'. If they were then we wouldn't be here discussing it.

[kiwi_tea]

That's a totally illogical statement. Nobody has ever opposed a harmless action or trait before?

[el_flel]

Of course they have. But if his actions weren't going to offend anyone then this wouldn't be an issue, would it?

[whiterider]

Do you feel that Jones was intentionally inciting physical violence? Because I honestly don't see any evidence that he was, and I do see some evidence that he wasn't.Apologies for the late reply; no. I was commenting on hate crime in general - as I explained earlier, I don't think that principle applies to Jones. :)

[kiwi_tea]

Offend. We keep coming back to that word. I'm offended at the idea that we should outlaw non-violent expression of people's opinions.

Sure. He offends people. So?

So does the Pope. Are we going to outlaw Catholic Mass because the Pope's opinions kill people, or are we going to fight fire with sand and water?

Apologies for the late reply; no. I was commenting on hate crime in general - as I explained earlier, I don't think that principle applies to Jones.

Thanks for clarifying. :)

[Nekowolf]

I see this as more than mere offense. I see it as provocative, and more than anything else, harassment. The whole Park 51 thing wasn't even mentioned by the guy until Republican heads brought it up.

If it was a protest, I think his point got made after it became so highly publicized. But then you had this period of him saying "well we may still do it!" No, I don't think he was merely protesting the religion of Islam; he was trying to harass them by burning their holy texts.

To them, I can only imagine it would be like a burning cross in the front yard of a black man. It goes beyond merely "offensive." Saying Islam is evil, that's offensive. But to be told this could lead to violence against US troops who are still there, after having it highly publicized and giving him airtime for whatever he wanted to say, saying first we'll burn them. Then they wouldn't. Then maybe they will.

It is planned, not some spontaneous Freudian slip. That takes the idea of its "offensiveness" to a whole new level. Because it is a planned event.

EDIT: And once again, to make completely sure; I am not saying outlaw it. Condemn it, definitely.

[kiwi_tea]

I think we're sort of in agreement Nekowolf. All offensive behaviour is "provocative", though, even if it's not universally (or even widely) offensive.

The fact that there could be violence against US troops, you can almost see that as stressing Jones' point and compelling him even more to make the protest. He's delusional. He doesn't understand that while the Koran is a terrible book as a basis of faith (much like the Bible) ACTUAL Muslims only use the Koran selectively, and are often very good people despite the Koran. He's just a deluded bigot.

It's definitely different to burning a cross in a black man's front yard, though. That carries (a) VERY explicitly violent associations (b) intrudes on another person's personal space.

[Nekowolf]

Sans the intrusion of personal space, coming from a man like him, I think it's safe to say that he wants that violence. It does him good; it reaffirms his beliefs in the evil of Islam.

The very fact that, even after General Petraeus came out publicly and said "this could endanger US troops" and the guy still refused to step down, I think that's a clear sign that he either doesn't care about what violence they'll face because of his actions, or he may even want it.

If that's the case, I would argue, yeah, what he's doing is of violent association, though perhaps in a different way than a cross-burning.

I could further go into why, but that might start to take things off-topic.

[kiwi_tea]

A "man like him." Hmmm. He's also a Christian who appears to take non-violence very seriously as a principle of "goodness".

No. I don't think he wants violence at all.

[Lemon&Lime]

@Lemon&Lime

You have to understand where come from. The idea of such a high level of freedom of speech has been with us since our creation as a separate nation. Uh...I really can't think of an appropriate analogy, but, what it is to us, I guess, is like what the Queen is to you?


Not really. Royalty is more of like a cultural emblem or a tourist attraction. The average British person doesn't hold the Queen as dear as their own rights as an individual. Why do Americans think we worship her or something? Our political system as a democracy had to grow around royalty as both depended on the other for existance, which is why we have both.

All I am going to say is that in Britain, racist or religious intolerance is dealt with a lot better. Our political leader won't sit there and watch as a diplomatic crisis happens while saying "he has the right to do it!" - as if that does USA any good in internation relations! It's typical American attidude. "We have the right to do and say what we want! By the way it includes invading other countries just because we don't agree with their political system *cough*communism*cough."

I don't have anything against Americans themselves, just their international affairs "policy". If this had happened in Britain, it would maybe have made national news before the guy was MADE to stop. There was a "Muslim imam" who preached hate about Britain, America etc and he was deported within a year of him starting.

An observation and personal opinion I'd like to state: I'm willing to bet a substantial amount of money that the only reason this guy was not stopped by the USA government was not his constitutional rights, but the fact that he was a Christian. If he was a Muslim threatening to burn Bibles, I think he would have been jailed for being a terrorist or something else.

[Nekowolf]

If he took it so seriously, then either A. he really doesn't take it all that seriously, or. B. his feelings against Islam are just that strong.

After Petraeus came out and said this may well end up endangering our troops, he didn't say "Well maybe I shouldn't." No. He said his mind was made up; he will go through with it. It wasn't until later did his mind change, and that was for, supposedly, whole other reason. He didn't change his mind until the whole Park 51 thing got tied into it. Petraeus warned of troop endangerment before that.

[Lemon&Lime]

It's definitely different to burning a cross in a black man's front yard, though. That carries (a) VERY explicitly violent associations (b) intrudes on another person's personal space.

I'm sorry, but how is this different to burning Qur'ans publically in front of a Muslim audience?

[Nekowolf]

@Lemon&Lime

Well you get the idea, right? It's something that is just that much of a part of us.

Anyway, I really don't think it's because he's Christian. The First Amendment really is that broad. You can burn a Bible without any government repercussion. The ones who would pick it up would likely be people like Fox News.

Basically, as long as there are no criminal activities (such as incitement of violence, disturbing the peace, vandalism, stealing, etc.) you can say the most hateful things, regardless of what it's about. You have Glenn Beck comparing Obama to Nazis and Communism on national TV, and he's not Christian, he's Mormon. Mormon's aren't that popular.

Now the public backlash? That would a whole different story. In that case, you would be right. If a Muslim burned a Bible, you would have people like Fox News all over it like hungry wolves on a fresh kill. But they're hateful little shits.

[Lemon&Lime]

I do get your point and I understand the reasons why, and I do respect it.

I think I'm on fairly solid ground though when I say that if a Christian and a Muslim both commit an equal crime the Muslim is going to get a worse punishment. Studies have shown that the darker your skin, the higher jail sentence you'll get. If there is one.

I think people's ideas of incitement of violence is pretty naiive. Doing something with the knowledge that it will incite violence, whether or not you personally think it deserves a violent reaction or not - is still inciting violence, no matter how you look at it.

[Nekowolf]

You're both right and wrong. You have to remember that a government isn't a singular person, well, not ours. It's a big, bulky group of people. And sure, that kind of, uh...what's the word...I guess I would have to say injustice. I mean, yeah, it happens, yes.

And you would be right in a public backlash, yes. But, if this book burning, if he bought or they were donated, or whatever, not stolen, those Qu'rans, and burned them in his property, the government cannot stop him. Muslim or not. They absolutely cannot. When it comes to constitutional rights, there is very little wiggle room, if any. It's not like other court cases. Constitutional rights ARE absolute. They are above even the government's power. Yes, injustice has been done before, of course. But something so clear as arresting a Muslim for burning a Bible, it would be a very clear violation of the First Amendment.

Now, like I said, a Muslim would, yes, face more heat in the public backlash. Absolutely.

[Lemon&Lime]

I'm not trying to argue that what he's doing is illegal in the USA.

I'm arguing that the USA are wrong to allow people to do that. I prefer my country's system in which people who set out to incite hatred get the punishment they deserve, rather than be allowed to cause international outrage just by exploiting a loophole in the law. This is why America have more extremist groups than we do in Britain I think, and more problems with international relations etc. We don't tolerate hatred. Yes your right to express whatever you want is perhaps a golden standard many countries want, but I think this incident is proof that it is never going to work so long as you have ignorant people like that Pastor. It made USA look like a fool of a country who can't control its own people.

I do however understand it's complex, but it is true - it damaged Americas reputation, and it's a poor advertisement for democracy.

[shirablank]

So what you're saying is that people's religious rights should trump others' property rights? How will this affect artists?

I have a big crucifix with Jesus in sparkly drag wearing a pink feather boa on my wall. Should I be prosecuted for having a sense of humour?
Your crucifix does not contain in it the entire teachings of the religion. Some might find it offensive, but I'm going to assume you don't regularily bring it to churches and hang it up on their walls. Also you didn't destroy it, you mocked it. This pastor wasn't threatening to mock Islam, he was threatening to symbollicly destroy something they consider holy with the specific purpose of pissing them off, not making people laugh.
So yes, I see your point. It's a fine line, other books aren't protected, he bought it he can do what he wants, etc.
But this to me seems a bit different than my drawing a moustache on Jesus in a print of the last supper and hanging it up in my room. He's deliberately trying to attack the beliefs of a whole group of people which he knows nothing about. If you were to burn that crucifix while publicly proclaiming that you beleive all Christians to be evil I would allow the two to be equated to one another.

Shira, American laws give an absolute right to burn books, as long as you own them. It's considered Freedom of Speech, under the First Amendment of the Constitution. So we can't do anything to stop it. I'm not sure I would try to stop it legally, either.

However, if it offends you, I think tit-for-tat would be appropriate. Get a pile of Bibles and burn them, stomp on them, whatever, and put it on Youtube. Just follow my new rule, though, and read it first, if you want to be better than them. Set a precedent!

They are just books. The real message the Koran-burners are trying to send Muslims is, "We hate you, hate you hate you, we want to insult you, we're dumb and we're too stupid and impulsive to think things through any further than that. And we're proud of being this way."

I don't actually think tit-for-tat an appropriate response. An eye for an eye and all that, and I'm sure many people agree. Unfortunately, not everyone does. Things like this have happened before and there are always certain people who do not respond with nonviolent protest.
I like to think most people are peaceable, but sometimes something small can act as a catalyst and cause a huge reaction.

[Black_Barook!]

"But it was heavily implied."

No. No it wasn't. You thought up of that implication. The simply truth is that many Middle Eastern nations can be fairly restrictive. They may not understand our culture and our laws, or just how much freedom we really have.

That is what I said. And meant. /end.

By stating

The problem people from those Middle Eastern regions might not quite grasp just the true extent of free speech in America, being they've never had it themselves.

Heavily implies that there were never any democratic governments involved and that the people of the Middle East are not able to comprehend the notions of democracy, freedom of speech, and all that it entails. (That is the correct way to use entails..?).

Which, suffice to say, is wrong. You are correct to say that the majority of Middle Eastern countries are restrictive, but that does not necessarily mean that the citizens of those countries are not politically charged. Even my own stroked-out grandmother can teach a few professors of Middle Eastern Politics a thing or two. (And she's illiterate)

People here are supportive of democratic governments, they ask for it. Push for it. Rally, bitch, moan, raise all hell and all too much die for it. Just because we have different ideas of what is morally and socially acceptable does not mean that we do not understand American culture and laws or unable to grasp the true extent of America's freedom of speech laws.

[Nekowolf]

...dude. Look RIGHT IN FRONT OF IT.

"true extent of free speech in America, being they've never had it themselves."

Because they haven't. They never had the same broad freedom of speech that America has. You are taking what I said waaaaay out of context. This discussion ends now.

[Mistermook]

Your crucifix does not contain in it the entire teachings of the religion.
Neither does any given religious text, unless it's the only book in existence. I thought the prohibitions against depicting Muhammad in Islam were warnings against idolatry? I'm not religious, but isn't getting bent out of shape about this a lot like treating the book itself as holy rather than the ideas and teaching inside as holy? I can understand how it might feel like the ideas themselves are being attacked, and in fact I have no doubt that's the intent of the pastor, but in actuality it's all just paper. It's just a thing.

[anothereyjana]

The problem with discussing religion in pretty much any form, is that it cannot always be discussed rationally, as people cannot always remove themselves from what their religion says. This is especially common in monotheistic religions, since many of them make the "One True God" claim. No matter how much you attempt to agree to disagree, or try and let them know that, while respecting their opinion and beliefs, you do not share them, there will always be those who will take offense. That seems to be the double-edged sword that is belief. On the one hand, it can enrich people's lives, bring people together, sometimes provide humanity with fantastic and interesting artwork and literature (many early works were religious in nature, and the stories and mythos in many religious works can be interesting and thought-provoking, if taken anecdotally and not literally) and actually do some good once in awhile. On the other hand, it is that same unifying force can also cause divisions.

Legally, did Terry Jones have the right to do what he did/threatened to do? Yes.
Do I stand by his right to do so? A very reluctant yes, since I find his level of ignorance and bigotry sickening, but realize that freedom can often be a two-way street, and that the alternative of disallowing him his freedom is worse, since it would dis-allow many others as well.
Should he have done it? NO.
Should he have realized that his actions would incite violence, especially among those who will take personal insult to an act like this, especially when he has shown that he is one of those who is unable to seperate himself from his religion (thereby making him very hypocritical, since he apparently expects others to seperate their religion from themselves)? YES.

Whether the people who have begun rioting and causing violence in Kashmir and Afghanistan are the ones to blame for turning to rioting and violence, the fact remains that Terry Jones's words and threats have, directly or inderectly, caused people to loose their lives (people have been killed in the regions as a direct result of the riots, both civilains and police officers). Terry Jones is said to be a pastor at the Dove World Outreach Center, which makes what he has done especially disgraceful. Christianity/Islam/Judaism all come from a common root, and as such, often say similar things, one of which is supposed to be love and charity; the Bible says "turn the other cheek," and the Quran (Koran) has, as one of it's pillars of faith, charity/kindness/giving back. Not only that, but as a pastor, he is supposed to be a kind of leader to those who follow his religion, someone who is supposed to set an example.

As such, one of his first duties as a pastor (outside of those to his god), should have been to promote understanding, faith, healing, and, above all, peace. There is, to my knowledge, not a Hypocratic oath of "first do no harm" which one takes to become a pastor, however, it seems to be heavily inferred/implied. Especially when he serves in a church which uses a symbol of peace (the dove) for itself. He has clearly done the opposite, and if he were a true advocate for his religion and congregation, then he would recognise the harm which this has caused, issue a formal apology to Muslims and Muslim nations, and step down from his position as a pastor.

I am not saying that he should be forced to do so by law or any other means, mind you, but that he should do so of his own free will, considering the lives which have already been lost (and the other deaths which may follow before the violence stirred up by this is quelled), and the potential for creating an international incident this has/could have had.

[BR_FL]

This is why America have more extremist groups than we do in Britain I think, and more problems with international relations etc. We don't tolerate hatred.

It isn't that there's more in the U.S.A. It's just that extremists in Britain (although this applies to most European nations) are much better at keeping there agenda under wraps. The hatred is still there.

[Black_Barook!]

...dude. Look RIGHT IN FRONT OF IT.

"true extent of free speech in America, being they've never had it themselves."

Because they haven't. They never had the same broad freedom of speech that America has. You are taking what I said waaaaay out of context. This discussion ends now.

1. Some of the democracies in the Middle East are or were based on the American system.

2. One does not need to live in Brazil, South Africa, or India to understand how their democracies work.

3. I forgot what I was going to say since I threw out my back (that is the correct phrase right?) a few hours ago and I'm swimming in a pool of vicodin with Dr. House. You know for an old guy he sure has a nice body...where was I going with this?

Oh yes. The conversations here isn't about if he was free to do so or not. We know the American system well enough to know that he does. What were on about is "Do these idiots do not understand the concept of civility?" as one friend kindly put it. (Catholic Indian).

Am I making any sense? I really can't tell. Also I hope I'm not coming off as attacking you NWolf.

I thought the prohibitions against depicting Muhammad in Islam were warnings against idolatry? I'm not religious, but isn't getting bent out of shape about this a lot like treating the book itself as holy rather than the ideas and teaching inside as holy?

But the Q'uran is treated like in a holy manner. One must be cleansed of sin and dirt to even touch the book. To read it one must be in a certain state of mind, and make sure that nothing rest on it.

The annoying thing with this logic (It's just a book, get over it) is that it isn't just a book, and just because Christians seem to be willing to have their faith ridiculed doesn't mean that Muslims are going to.

[Vanito]

It appears Holland has a similar way of dealing with hate speech as Great Britain. And happily so.

The USA has a very lame emphasis on the "freedom to say what you want". It's not about the freedom to do what you want, which in many ways is limited, you cant even properly euthanize, but no, you can "say what you want'.

The average level of hate speech on USA TV and in politics, and amongst USA people is big compared to here. We find Geert Wilders very offensive, in the USA he would be considered normal. Insults towards minorities are totally ok, even in the most offensive ways. USA pastors say the most cruel things. And people find that normal that that is allowed, and costs lifes. Then they whine about the islam (which except a small group of terrorists does less harm than USA pastors)

And then people wonder why some don't like the USA. Aside the materialism, this is another big one.


It isn't that there's more in the U.S.A. It's just that extremists in Britain (although this applies to most European nations) are much better at keeping there agenda under wraps. The hatred is still there.
When people are fed with more hate they will hate more. Especially women tend not to be homophobic unless fed so. The same goes for a large part of straightmen, though some will remain phobic anyway. The better educated the less haters, and the more hate is considered normal and promoted, the more haters.

[Nekowolf]

Shows how little you really know of us. Such a wide brush you paint with.

@Lemon&Lime

"This is why America have more extremist groups than we do in Britain I think, and more problems with international relations etc."

Perhaps because we are a larger nation? And we have regional differences in culture as well; from the West, to the South, to the Midwest, to the Northeast. Plus you have a new conservative party that is going batshit insane. As for international relations, I think it has to do largely with the previous isolationist attitudes.

Oh. And we do not simply look at hatred and shrug. Some of us will not tolerate it. Some of us will even fight against it. Some of us will fight for it. Some of us simply don't care. Do not assume we are tolerable of hatred as a whole.

[Lemon&Lime]

It isn't that there's more in the U.S.A. It's just that extremists in Britain (although this applies to most European nations) are much better at keeping there agenda under wraps. The hatred is still there.

That's a really flawed argument. "Well you must have the same amount as extremeists as we do, just yours are hiding which is why no one has heard of them and they're so clever they leave no traces either." Or maybe they just don't exist?

By the way, I'm not going to respond to the last post other than to say "I agree with Vanito". He's said pretty much what I was going to say so there's no point in repeating it.

[kiwi_tea]

But the Q'uran is treated like in a holy manner. One must be cleansed of sin and dirt to even touch the book. To read it one must be in a certain state of mind, and make sure that nothing rest on it.

The annoying thing with this logic (It's just a book, get over it) is that it isn't just a book, and just because Christians seem to be willing to have their faith ridiculed doesn't mean that Muslims are going to.

This is whole the nub of the problem, really. It doesn't matter whether Muslims think it's holy or not. It doesn't matter whether they're willing to be ridiculed or not. Ideas are open to ridicule. And religions are just ideas that some people have. For a free society to exist, you need a free exchange of ideas, you need to be able to criticise each other.

You can't always criticise irrationality. Sometimes mockery is the only recourse.

[Purity4]

Here is an update:

Editor's Comment (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-raushenbush/how-the-proposed-quran-bu_b_716691.html?ref=fb&src=sp#sb=629090,b=facebook)

[RoseCity]

The problem seems to be that people decide what offends them without going first to the Bureau of Logic to see if their offense is rational. Annoying, but that's how it is. So you should pick your battles wisely in case you get a big old fatwa on your ass.

[kiwi_tea]

Here is an update:

Editor's Comment (http://http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-raushenbush/how-the-proposed-quran-bu_b_716691.html?ref=fb&src=sp#sb=629090,b=facebook)

"even the atheists"

lol

Otherwise, great article. I nearly didn't even click it because I saw it was at the Huffington Post.

[Black_Barook!]

...dude. Look RIGHT IN FRONT OF IT.

"true extent of free speech in America, being they've never had it themselves."

Because they haven't. They never had the same broad freedom of speech that America has. You are taking what I said waaaaay out of context. This discussion ends now.

No the discussion does not end now. I assure you that there were nations in the Middle East and greater Middle East that do enjoy the same amount of freedoms, and there are still nations that do enjoy those same freedoms, albeit in the case of Kuwait those freedoms are being attacked. Democracy at it’s core is similar regardless of where, when or who applies it. There is a difference, sometimes it is a stark difference, between the democratic processes of Brazilian, Indian, South African, British, Kuwaiti and Japanese democracy but that doesn’t make them any less valid than that of the United States of America.

I get what you're trying to say, that people in the Middle East might be offended by what the Pastor has said and what he wanted to do. However the people of the Middle East aren’t arguing about whether it his right or not to do so. They know it is. It is a question about being a civilized citizen, and civilized citizens do not burn books, especially those that are held dear by over a billion followers.

Maybe it’s because I come from Kuwait. Maybe it’s because I was raised to respect the beliefs of others and to protect their rights to pray to God(s) or not at all. Either way this is not acceptable behavior, and should not be tolerated, not in any society that wishes to keep the peace.

And I understand that if as Muslim we should be secure in our faith that this shouldn’t bother us, that the actions of someone shouldn’t effect us that deeply. However it isn’t about us being secure in our faith or not, it’s about respect and such actions just reinforce the notion that we are somehow sub-human. It sends the message that unless we leave our faith, or at least shed all that makes Europeans/Americans uncomfortable then we are unwelcome.

Finally how do you think this would have played out in the Middle East? Was this person unaware that this would play into the hands of extremists, that they would use this to justify their twisted and perverted beliefs? That this won’t spur them to attack other religions or burn their holy books? That it won’t make it harder for moderates to fight what seems to be a losing battle? And you would be right to say that this isn’t America’s problem, that moderate Muslims should speak louder and work harder to prove their point.

However...

This is whole the nub of the problem, really. It doesn't matter whether Muslims think it's holy or not.

Actually it does. This isn’t any book, if it was any book then yes ridicule it anyway you’d please. But when dealing with sensitive matters whether it be religion, sexuality or any matter of a sensitive nature we have to treat each other with a level of respect if we have any hope of understanding each other.

It doesn't matter whether they're willing to be ridiculed or not. Ideas are open to ridicule. And religions are just ideas that some people have. For a free society to exist, you need a free exchange of ideas, you need to be able to criticize each other.

I agree, for a free society to exist ideas need to be criticizes, not ridiculed. Ridiculing someone’s idea will only intrench them and discredit you as a voice of reason which isn’t very helpful. If all people did was ridicule each other than we’d just have two sides unwilling to cooperate for the betterment of society. The only reason that Kuwaiti democracy was able to survive and thrive was because of the respect that each side presented to the other, thus leading each side to cooperate and moderate for the greater good of Kuwait. And now since all sides in our political system are more interested in trading insults instead of ideas we’re have a bit of a crisis. Seems to me that America also shares this problem in its politics.

You can't always criticize irrationality. Sometimes mockery is the only recourse.

No actually you can criticize and moderate irrationality. How do you think we’ve been able to get violent extremist in check? We criticized the actions of non-violent extremists, we moderated our positions and so did they. When it was clear to them that we had the same interest, that we were as invested in the future of Kuwait as they were, they were able then able to convince the violent extremist to put down their guns.

I'll end with this:
"Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings."-Heinrich Heine

[kiwi_tea]

Actually it does. This isn’t any book, if it was any book then yes ridicule it anyway you’d please. But when dealing with sensitive matters whether it be religion, sexuality or any matter of a sensitive nature we have to treat each other with a level of respect if we have any hope of understanding each other.

The point is it is just any book outside of Muslim culture. Unless we live in a theocratic state, people are allowed to treat it just like any book - like any other piece of their property. The USA (or NZ for that matter) is not a theocratic state.

And again, what Pastor Jones did needs to be criticised and mocked. Just not ever, ever banned.

[Black_Barook!]

The point is it is just any book outside of Muslim culture.

Point of disagreement (Why did that sound like the Model UN?). When it is used outside of Muslim culture (and by that I assume you mean used by non-Muslims), then it doesn't become just any book. It becomes one of the few books that deal with the meaning of existence, and where we lie in the grand scheme of things. I'm not a Hindu nor am I Buddhist, but I still treat the Upanishads with a certain respect and reverence. I might not be a Christian, but I still treat the Church (Building, not the Catholic Hierarchy) with the same respect that I give the Masjid. It doesn't even have to be books that deal with religion, or spirituality. I treat secular books like Plato's Republic, and the Communist Manifest with the same respect that I give to the works of Jewish and Confucius philosophers.

Do I disagree with ideas presented in some of those works? Yes, sometimes vehemently. However I still treat them with a certain respect, and even if I find some of them to be so distasteful, so repugnant (The works of Nazi or the Taliban for example) I still give them the same treatment. I don't burn them, I don't desecrate them, I either donate them or criticize them or try to better understand them or at least where the writer is coming from. These books whether you wish to admit or not, are an integral part of Human civilization and should be treated with the respect that they deserve. Whether you, or I or we like them or not is irrelevant.

Unless we live in a theocratic state, people are allowed to treat it just like any book - like any other piece of their property. The USA (or NZ for that matter) is not a theocratic state.

It doesn't matter whether we live in theocratic Iran, Secular France, Secular, yet theocratic, yet Secular Kuwait or "Meh we don't care." America. Burning books is not the path to creating a civilized society. It's not the path to creating a society that has an respect of admiration for higher thinking. It's not even a path to creating a society that is all for intellectual dissidence.

And again, what Pastor Jones did needs to be criticised and mocked. Just not ever, ever banned.

Pastor Jones should be criticized, should be told that what he is doing is counter-productive, that there are better avenues to take if he hopes to...whatever it is he hopes to do. But not mocked. Mocking him will only push him further in the path he choose. It will also discredit you as a person of reason.

I get it. I understand the need to defend his right to do what he wants. I understand the underlying fear that if we take away his right to burn books, then someday someone might take away our right to own books. But is that really a valid fear? Should we allow him to add more fuel to the fires of hate? Should we allow him to sow the seeds of distrust and disrespect in society just because maybe, just maybe someone might start dictating what we can and can't write?

[kiwi_tea]

I don't burn them, I don't desecrate them, I either donate them or criticize them or try to better understand them or at least where the writer is coming from. These books whether you wish to admit or not, are an integral part of Human civilization and should be treated with the respect that they deserve.

I think we're basically in agreement on this. Only the books themselves are just containers. I have utmost respect for the Bible and Qu'ran and the genre of literature that might be called "sacred fiction". I respect these stories. I respect secular works. I think there is an incredibly vast array of books that deal with human nature and humanity's role in the world. "Sacred fiction" is distinct in that it's invariably full of clumsy, inaccurate, and ancient theories. That's why we even end up having these debates. Because people are still adhering to old-time religion. They want to be David with his sling or something, a weak force with God's blood-thirsty might behind them. Should people burn the Bible? No. Should people burn Plato's Republic? No. Should they be allowed to. Yes, yes, and yes.

The fear I have is that peaceful protest - which is sometimes offensive to some people - might be restricted.

As to mockery - it is an important tool in any rationalist's box. It's useful for exposing inherently ridiculous beliefs masquerading as sane ones, and without great satirists we'd probably be more tolerant of some things we really ought not to tolerate. Mockery is a very effective tool for bringing people together peacefully against irrationality. It just shouldn't be mistaken for the most persuasive tool. It's not very useful in persuading people.

[jooxis]

If he wants to burn any books it is well within his right to do so. Whether it's a "good idea" or appropriate or whatever doesn't matter. Same logic ALL of you applied when defending the muslim community center near Ground Zero. "Even if it may offend some people and may be in bad taste, they have a right!". Sounds like some of you should make up your minds...

[el_flel]

Er those are two totally different things. The muslim community centre can send a really good message. Burning the Koran can't.

Addtionally the burning of the Koran is being done purely to cause outrage and offence. Building a muslim community centre near ground zero isn't.

[jooxis]

Er those are two totally different things. The muslim community centre can send a really good message. Burning the Koran can't.

... and that's looking at it only from YOUR point of view. I don't think there's any doubt that many people were DEEPLY offended by the idea of a muslim community center/mosque (I haven't seen people crying so much in quite a while) so both actions cause a considerable amount of offense. It's only your opinion that you think one side has more of a right to be offended and that one thing is more appropriate.

The bottom line is that both actions are legal and both offend people. Decide whether you want to defend someone's legal rights or people's feelings.

edit: and intentions don't matter at all. You don't know what their intentions were and it's the result that matters in the end. This was supposed to be a peaceful protest so I didn't get the impression he was only trying to incite violence. Perhaps he is ignorant but I can't say 100% for sure what the pastor's intentions are. As for the mosque, I seriously doubt the good intentions of those behind it considering their stubborness to build it there despite everyone whining about it - it only worsened the general feelings towards the muslim community.

[el_flel]

No, the point is the reasons behind both of these things. The pastor burning the koran is only doing so solely because he wants to piss people off. The proposal of the muslim community centre isn't to piss people off. There is a massive difference between the two which has nothing to do with my opinion.

[jooxis]

No, the point is the reasons behind both of these things. The pastor burning the koran is only doing so solely because he wants to piss people off. The proposal of the muslim community centre isn't to piss people off. There is a massive difference between the two which has nothing to do with my opinion.

So the Pope telling Africans not to use condoms or other contraception is okay because he has good intentions by saying it? The results of that action are what matter.

[el_flel]

That's a different scenario, I'm failing to see the relevance. My point still stands - the difference between those two things (in UK law at least) is the purpose. If you're inciting religious hatred in the UK you are breaking the law - this is exactly what the Pastor is doing, his actions are nothing more than this.

[jooxis]

The relevance is there but moving on now... I am only looking at it from a legal perspective.
I think people should have the right to destroy any physical thing they legally purchase (unless it may cause a biological catastrophe or something). I won't ever use that right because I'm not the book-burning type but I want others to have that right as it seems common sense for such a right to be provided to citizens.
I can only advise people not to do something that I may find stupid but I don't want to make their intended actions illegal. It's never a good idea to offend a bunch of people, especially if they never did anything to you, but I don't see the law as something that should protect people's feelings.

[jodemilo]

My simplistic opinion: the guy is obviously a plonker for considering such an act of disrespect. I'm atheist, I actually think religion is probably this world's undoing. But that's my opinion. I was born Church of England and married a muslim (Egyptian), now separated. No big deal, different faiths are allowed to inter-marry, as someone said before we all worship the same god, just in different ways.

But if you saw this from, say, an Egyptian's point of view who had an ounce of intelligence, they'd be laughing at the ignorance of this guy. Unfortunately a less-intelligent person would see this, via the media, as representative of a whole country's attitude towards Islam. So it really wasn't a very clever thing to plan to do from a PR perspective. :)

I like the way he has now backtracked and using the pathetic excuse "God is telling us to stop" - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11273678

ETA: Oh, going back to someone mentioning about FMG (female genital mutilation), that's always been a cultural custom, not a religious one.

[el_flel]

but I don't see the law as something that should protect people's feelings.This has been mentioned before but in case you missed it: there are already laws which do this: harrassment and abuse laws, for example.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

Is he basically saying "hey, we're going to respond to radical islam by being radical too!" ? Because fighting fire with fire (no pun intended) is such a good idea.

fighting fire with fire...isnt that arsen? and never a good idea? xD
because *sarcasm* what could be better than your neighbor starting fires? starting fires with them! */sarcasm*

and to this:

“We will not be responsible,” Jones said. “We are only reacting to the violence that is already there in that religion.”

i say...
if you look for violence, you will find it. you will never find what you do not already choose to seek.
this being out there now; violent findings i believe to be the product of violent seekers. people who want to see hostility and provocation will see it, regardless of the target of their sights.

and as for responsibility....

name me *one* time the church actually took responsibility for a screw up -_- without being bailed out.

[dadebabe09]

Since we are STILL on the subject...Christopher Hitchens from the Slate had this to say about the building of the Mosque near Ground Zero...

El_flel: The muslim community centre can send a really good message.

CH: The supposed imam of the place, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is on record as saying various shady and creepy things about the original atrocity. Shortly after 9/11, he told 60 Minutes, "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened." He added, "In the most direct sense, Osama Bin Laden is made in the USA." More recently, he has declined to identify the racist and totalitarian Hamas party as being guilty of the much less severe designation of terrorist. ...A widespread cultural cringe impels many people to the half-belief that it's better to accommodate "moderates" like Rauf as a means of diluting the challenge of the real thing. So for the sake of peace and quiet, why not have Comedy Central censor itself or the entire U.S. press refuse to show the Danish cartoons?

El_flel: The pastor burning the koran is only doing so solely because he wants to piss people off. The proposal of the muslim community centre isn't to piss people off.

CH: [The]Weekly Standard, ...called on President Obama to denounce the Cordoba House on the grounds that a 3-to-1 majority of Americans allegedly find it "offensive."

[A call to arms just because someone or some group finds something offensive] borrows straight from the playbook of Muslim cultural blackmail; claim that something is "offensive," and it is as if the assertion itself has automatically become an argument...[However, if you take] the ground [of being] offen[ded] [then you are] "irrational and bigoted."

[Nekowolf]

And YET.

O'BRIEN: Where will you get the money?

*RAUF: We will raise from whatever source we can, domestically, especially. And we're very transparent on how we've raised the money. This has been something that we've committed ourselves to.

O'BRIEN: Meaning you will list whoever is giving you money.

RAUF: Yes.

O'BRIEN: Will you turn down money from people who, say, give money to Hamas?

RAUF: Absolutely.

O'BRIEN: No question about it? Anyone who supports Hamas cannot give money to you?

RAUF: We will do whatever is absolutely correct and legal and the safe thing to do.

http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1009/08/lkl.01.html

*I spaced it. There was no line break.

[el_flel]

Since we are STILL on the subject...Christopher Hitchens from the Slate had this to say about the building of the Mosque near Ground Zero...'Still' on the subject? We were barely on the subject, and only because it was used as a comparison to the topic of this thread. If you want to debate the mosque there's already a thread on it.

[Black_Barook!]

The Cordoba House was intended and still is intended as focal point for the Muslim community in NYC and to function as a meeting place between Muslims and Non-Muslims.

The Pastor wanted, still does, maybe not, we'll have to wait until God says, to burn the Qu'ran in an effort to get his message across. I'm not really sure what that message was and if the way he was going about it was productive at all.

The Cordoba House is helping create a virtuous cycle. The Pastor is helping create a vicious cycle. The people whining about the Cordoba House aren't really all that different then those who whined about the Japanese and the Pastor who wanted to burn the Qu'ran is no different than the Nazis and the Talbian who burned books because they didn't like them.

[dadebabe09]

And YET.

O'BRIEN: Where will you get the money?

*RAUF: We will raise from whatever source we can, domestically, especially. And we're very transparent on how we've raised the money. This has been something that we've committed ourselves to.

O'BRIEN: Meaning you will list whoever is giving you money.

RAUF: Yes.

O'BRIEN: Will you turn down money from people who, say, give money to Hamas?

RAUF: Absolutely.

O'BRIEN: No question about it? Anyone who supports Hamas cannot give money to you?

RAUF: We will do whatever is absolutely correct and legal and the safe thing to do.



I stand corrected. He's so honest, and trusting.
TurboTax for 2010:

Part IV - Special Situations in your Return for Current Year Donations

Did you support any Terrorist Organizations in 2010? ___Yes ____No
If yes, please list the Terrorist Organization(s) in which you support and list the amount in which you contributed.

Maybe it's there...I'm no tax accountant. I'm just saying...oh, even better...what about the tax filing for Hamas...

Schedule C - Profit or Loss From a Business

A Name of Proprietor: Mahmoud Zahar
B Principal business of profession: Terror
C Business name: Hamas Movement
D Address: West Bank

F Accounting Method: ___ Cash __Accrual _X_Other: Hush Hush
G Did you 'materially participate' in the operation of the business during 2010? If no, please explain: Um, hello! If I 'materially participated', I wouldn't still be here, now would I? Duh!

Part II - Expenses
8 Advertising: $0 - it's all word of mouth or strongarm tactics
9 Car and truck expenses - :rofl: Don't get me started.
11 Contract Labor - Yes
12 Depletion - See 11 and 9
14 Employee benefit programs: :rofl:
15 Insurance: You mean there's policies out there for companies that destroy their own shit?
17 Legal & Professional Services: Naw, don't need 'em. The poor bastards don't live to see the trial.
24 Travel: One way tickets are not that expensive...

:rofl: :lol: "Here's your sign." Bill Envall

[Nekowolf]

So rather than accepting a man for his word, who has frequently denounced terrorism and such, who has tried to build bridges between the West and Islam, are you instead preferring to cower in fear and paranoia of mere possibilities? That he has connections to Hamas, why?

Is it... because he is Muslim? Is it... because he is an imam? Is it... because he is trying to a build a [falsely titled] "Ground Zero mosque?"

From Christopher Hitchens? A renowned anti-theist, who just may have quite a problem with monotheistic religions, and who may (I cannot say for certain, of course) not support the building of perceived religious edifice?

[dadebabe09]

No, it isn't any of those reasons. But give me a break. Even if you don't want to quote Christopher Hitchens, then quote 60 minutes, or even the Larry King Live program you used as an example. His words seem to skirt all the issues that S. O'Brian was confronting him with. Sure he will SAY he won't take money from terrorist organizations directly; but, as my example shows, how would he know!? (The innocent spin) or better yet, even if he did know, he could always say, "Remember I said I would never take money from them. If I knew the money was coming from terrorist supporters, I would have NEVER taken the money." You say "accept a man for his word" and I say "CYA"!

P.S. - I have many friends who are Muslim...dated a gorgeous man from Jordan back in college, and almost married him. I have close friends who were run out of their homes and feared for their lives and the lives of their friends and family in Kuwait when Saddam Hussein attacked them before the first Gulf War. And I have even more friends and friends of friends who have fought to defend the rights of Kuwaitis, Afghanis, Iraquis, and Americans through both conflicts in the Middle East. So, once again, I say...just because my opinion goes against that of Rauf or Muslim Extremists who threaten violence wherever their ideas are challenged, DOESN'T MAKE ME A MUSLIM HATER! But, let me tell you something, this post is pushing me that way!! The more I hear "Oh, poor us, you American's are the Haters and we are just the victims of ignorant, unjust profiling."...the more I just want to throw up! Once and for all, GET OVER IT!!!

[Black_Barook!]

I think we're basically in agreement on this. Only the books themselves are just containers. I have utmost respect for the Bible and Qu'ran and the genre of literature that might be called "sacred fiction". I respect these stories. I respect secular works. I think there is an incredibly vast array of books that deal with human nature and humanity's role in the world. "Sacred fiction" is distinct in that it's invariably full of clumsy, inaccurate, and ancient theories.

I’d have to disagree on that last part. The majority of “clumsy, inaccurate, theories” that I’ve seen debated were mostly from the Gospel and Torah. And lets be honest here:

1.The languages that these books were written in no longer exist or have changed vastly since the time they were written.
2. The original copies have been lost and all we have are translations that have been severely botched and parts added and removed to meet the whims of those who rule.
3. Lastly we have the cultural difference. I find it hard that the words of an Italian monk are of any relevance to what was written a thousand or four thousand years ago by Semites who lived in the desert...more or less there were a few rivers here and there. Also the river Jordan isn’t might.


That's why we even end up having these debates. Because people are still adhering to old-time religion.

So we should drop ideologies because they’re old?

They want to be David with his sling or something, a weak force with God's blood-thirsty might behind them.

Who doesn’t want to be David? You’re there walking, doing you’re own thing and then some asshole decides to mess with you. Wouldn’t you want to God’s blood-thirsty might behind you? God knows that would have helped the Native-Americans and European Jews.

The fear I have is that peaceful protest - which is sometimes offensive to some people - might be restricted.

If that is a valid fear, than I’m afraid that you have more things to worry about. Like a government that needs to be brought down either through political revolt (ballot) or popular revolt (bomb). We have that same problem in Kuwait. You can’t organize any protest without telling the government. Bullshit I know, but we’ve chosen to go with the ballot and protest such laws through political votes instead of going full revolution like some of our neighbors. Didn’t turn out for them.

As to mockery - it is an important tool in any rationalist's box. It's useful for exposing inherently ridiculous beliefs masquerading as sane ones, and without great satirists we'd probably be more tolerant of some things we really ought not to tolerate. Mockery is a very effective tool for bringing people together peacefully against irrationality. It just shouldn't be mistaken for the most persuasive tool. It's not very useful in persuading people.

Ah satire! Why didn’t you say so from the start. When I read mockery I kept thinking of traditional mudslinging in the American and Kuwaiti Congress/Parliament and Nelson’s “HAHA!”

[Nekowolf]

@dadebabe09

And America has helped, and still does, fund terrorism, through buying Middle Eastern oil. From selling weapons to other countries, which eventually end up in their hands. Hell, we helped put Saddam Hussein in power, thanks to our actions. So I guess we should distrust our own country as a whole, as well?

I mean, surely, we would never say we would fund terrorism and help place dictators into their seats of power! Yet it happens.

No. I won't say you hate Muslims. But I will say you're being quite...something. See, I thought we lived in a country where you're innocent until proven guilty. Not guilty because other people say you are.

[dadebabe09]

@dadebabe09

Hell, we helped put Saddam Hussein in power, thanks to our actions.

I think you better check your facts.

[Lemon&Lime]

Actually USA did give them weapons. To fight the devil/communism.

[fakepeeps7]

I thought it was to fight Iran. Giving weapons to Afghanistan was to help fight communism...

[Nekowolf]

I can't remember, but...something about fighting against the Soviets in the Middle East? And that also lead to aiding terrorism.

It was explained to me once, but, I don't remember.

EDIT: Something else that could be interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair#Discovery_and_scandal

[RoseCity]

I think the US assisted him during the war with Iran. It was under George Bush the Elder.
Edit: I see that Fakepeeps already said this - sorry.

[pinketamine]

I can't remember, but...something about fighting against the Soviets in the Middle East? And that also lead to aiding terrorism.

It was explained to me once, but, I don't remember.

EDIT: Something else that could be interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair#Discovery_and_scandal


USA gave money and support to talibans, in Afganistan, to fight again the Soviet Union.

EDIT: I just noticed you were talking about Saddam Hussein and not Bin Landen :faceslap:
As far as I know, the USA contributed with him too. And I talk with history books as a resource, I'm not giving my opinion.

[Black_Barook!]

The British, with the help of the Americans overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran because he wanted to nationalize the oil sector to spread the wealth to his people.

The British didn't want that because they're greedy bastards who wanted oil at even at the cost of democratic movements in the region. The Americans didn't want that because they're dumb bastards who believed you're either with Capitalism or Communism.

The Iranian government was toppled and replaced by a ruthless authoritarian monarchy. Dissents grew, including communism oh the irony, and dissent grew into revolution.

The revolution brought in the a Shia Theocracy. Saddam declared war, knowing that the Americans would support. And the Americans were happy that the two biggest threats to their control of the region were attacking each other.

American power grew and democracy slowly faded into oblivion.

[Nekowolf]

Oh, forgot about this. So I'm posting it now. Oops!

http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1009/08/lkl.01.html

RAUF: I condemn everyone and anyone who commits acts of terrorism. And Hamas has committed acts of terrorism.

In fact, that's the very same article I posted earlier. I guess, well, he HAS condemned Hamas. Or should we continue to show prejudice against him under the guise of paranoia?

@pinketamine

Btw, thanks. And Saddam, Bin Laden, whatever. Point is, we have sold arms to people in the Middle East, and we have either directly or indirectly contributed to dictators and terrorism, and that we are accessories to what happened on 9/11 through our previous actions.

[Doc Doofus]

I find myself in agreement with Jooxis. She had it right. If you accept the absolute right of Imam Rauf to build a mosque/community center in New York anywhere he pleases, then you have to accept the right of Terry Jones to burn Korans and flip the finger at Islam.

Barook: I understand where you are coming from, I think. You keep trying to make a point about how ignorant many Americans are of other cultures, such as yours. But you really don't have freedom of speech in your country. The first and most important element of freedom of speech is the unrestricted right to criticize your current leaders, and you don't have that.

The reason that America is so extreme in its acceptance of freedom of religion has to do with the history of the West. People migrated here, hundreds of years ago, to get away from inter-religious wars that devastated Europe. (And devastated the Middle East during the Western-initiated Crusades, as well). The impulse of one religion to squelch and/or destroy other religions is a terrible part of our history. And that is why two hundred and thirty years ago, they made freedom of religion and speech and press into the First Amendment. There were many incompatible religions in the US already at that time, and nobody wanted to see any other religion come to dominate the others.

So Terry Jones right to burn Korans is more important to us than the offense that other people take at it.

But suppose you say, yes, you should have freedom to criticize other religions but not to insult them. Who decides that? Should we have laws that say that? Who gets to make the laws? Who gets to enforce those laws? If we had it in this country that government officials could make those decisions, I guarantee you, every Terry Jones in the country would be vying for the job, appealing to people's religious prejudices in their campaign speeches.

If you listen to Terry Jones, he does that already. He says he's not just fighting Islam, which is un-Christian. He's trying to keep Islam from (this is ridiculous, of course) imposing Sharia Law on the United States. The man actually says this, and there are countless fools who believe that nonsense, if only because so many people like to believe the most apocalyptic bullshit. We are better off not setting up arbiters of such things.

[Lemon&Lime]

I find myself in agreement with Jooxis. She had it right. If you accept the absolute right of Imam Rauf to build a mosque/community center in New York anywhere he pleases, then you have to accept the right of Terry Jones to burn Korans and flip the finger at Islam.
.

Actually, no I don't. Your logic implies that Imam Rauf is... "flip(ing) the finger at (Christianity?)" No he's not. If Terry Jones did what he planned to do in the UK, he'd be charged with trying to incite hatred. Imam Rauf is not trying to incite hatred or make a point about Christianity being rubbish.

Imam Rauf = trying to encourage peace between religions etc.
Terry Jokes = trying to "make a point about the evil of Islam".

How on earth can those be considored on the same level?

[Nekowolf]

Because under American law, they are equal. Well, sort of. How to say it...

They are, essentially, both protected under the First Amendment. So, in that way, they are equal. I guess?

[RoseCity]

It seems like the way they are different is : building the community center would come under the zoning laws of NYC and Jones burning the Korans would come under the laws his community has about building bonfires. I don't know if you have the 'right' to build things anywhere you please in the US - I could say I had the right to build a strip mall on some land that I owned, but it would have to be permitted by the city and they could say no. The same if I wanted to open a restaurant in an existing building.
But people can protest both things if they so desire. That's called Freedom of Speech.

[Nekowolf]

The thing is, is that it could be considered, building this building, as an expression of religion, and that having the government step in could be favoring (or rather, disfavoring?) a specific religion. In which case, it would be very much unconstitutional for them to do so.

[Nabila_Ici]

Okay, I skimmed over the last two pages but I was wondering if someone could clarify a few things for me, because I honestly did not understand them.

I find it kind of funny, really. I'm going to make a generalization, but most Egyptians dislike Jews. The so-called Jewish state invaded our country, killed a decent amount of our soldiers, humiliated us (though we never admit it) and has been nothing but trouble, but we don't oppose the building of synagogues (the Israeli embassy, on the other hand, is another matter, people are trying to get rid of that by any means possible), because it's not every single Jew's fault for what the Israeli government has done to us. I'm just trying to explain why this whole thing seems so silly, from my point of view. There is an estimate of 1.57 billion Muslims in the world, are they all to blame for the actions of a handful who were exploiting their religion? Should they all be punished/offended in an attempt to 'stand up' to that handful?

And out of curiosity, why were people crying when they heard that the Islamic centre was being built? Because from what I can understand, it sure as hell is wrong to condemn 1.57 billion people for the actions of a dozen, especially since there's a decent amount of American Muslims who I'm pretty sure are against terrorism.

[Nekowolf]

I only wish I knew the answer to why. They confound me oh so much.

[Nabila_Ici]

I find myself in agreement with Jooxis. She had it right. If you accept the absolute right of Imam Rauf to build a mosque/community center in New York anywhere he pleases, then you have to accept the right of Terry Jones to burn Korans and flip the finger at Islam.



I see where you are coming from, but I have to disagree. Again, I may not be seeing the big picture here but from what I can see, Imam Rauf is not trying to say 'hey Americans/Christians/Kufar, we're building a terrorist shelter in your backyard and rubbing our religion in your faces!', i.e he's not deliberately trying to be an asshole, rather trying to promote religious tolerance. Terry Jones, on the other hand, is as you're saying 'trying to flip the finger at Islam' - being an asshole.
Not to mention that Islam is not responsible for terrorism, as I stated before there are many terrorist organizations that are non-Muslim, but because they've never really attacked America, they're not as well known. Burning the Qu'ran is anti-Muslim, not anti-terror, whatever he may say.

[jhd1189]

I see where you are coming from, but I have to disagree. Again, I may not be seeing the big picture here but from what I can see, Imam Rauf is not trying to say 'hey Americans/Christians/Kufar, we're building a terrorist shelter in your backyard and rubbing our religion in your faces!', i.e he's not deliberately trying to be an asshole, rather trying to promote religious tolerance. Terry Jones, on the other hand, is as you're saying 'trying to flip the finger at Islam' - being an asshole.
Not to mention that Islam is not responsible for terrorism, as I stated before there are many terrorist organizations that are non-Muslim, but because they've never really attacked America, they're not as well known. Burning the Qu'ran is anti-Muslim, not anti-terror, whatever he may say.

I don't think Doc Doofus meant that their intentions were the same... just that as far as United States law is concerned, both of those actions are equivalent in that they are protected rights and fully legal. He's saying you can't have it both ways, basically. Yes, Terry Jones is being a total douche canoe, but you can't truly have freedom of speech and expression unless you grant him the right to be a douche canoe. I think that what he's proposing to do is awful and intolerant, but he does technically have the right.

[Nekowolf]

Yes, that's what I was trying to say, as well.

They're not equal in action or intention, certainly not in goals, but under the law, they are both legal rights, so equal in the sense of legality.

[Lemon&Lime]

I love that the Americans are saying that this guy has the right to incite hatred - presumably without repercussions?

Yeah he's being fined for the costs of his stunt. To be precise, the cost of security. Just read it on another forum, there was a linked article on that forum and I can find it if someone wants it.

So much for freedom of speech without repercussions ey? He's essentially being fined for what he did. Just like what we do in Britain, apart from we don't have to go through loopholes and backdoors to fine people.

[Nekowolf]

He's being fined due to security costs. Not because he threatened to burn the Qu'ran.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/17/florida.quran.pastor/index.html?hpt=T2

The city of Gainesville, Florida, plans to send a bill estimated at more than $180,000 to Pastor Terry Jones for security costs surrounding his controversial threat to burn Qurans on the anniversary of the September, 11, 2001, attacks, a police spokeswoman said Friday.

We cannot stop having the freedom of speech. We cannot punish him for what he says or does as long as it is within the confines of the law. Everything else though? That's all fair game.

EDIT: Who has to pay for his security over a stunt like this? Taxpayers. His security was being publicly funded. The town decided to levy that security costs to him. That seems fair enough to me. No one ever said there wouldn't be repercussions. Just that, as long as what he was doing was legal, the government, local, state, or federal, could not stop him, and could not punish him for expressing himself.

Security is not a part of that.

[Nabila_Ici]

I don't think Doc Doofus meant that their intentions were the same... just that as far as United States law is concerned, both of those actions are equivalent in that they are protected rights and fully legal. He's saying you can't have it both ways, basically. Yes, Terry Jones is being a total douche canoe, but you can't truly have freedom of speech and expression unless you grant him the right to be a douche canoe. I think that what he's proposing to do is awful and intolerant, but he does technically have the right.

Agh, I don't really know how to explain my opinion on this. What I understood was that if I'm in support of the Imam exercising his right to build wherever he wants, then I should support Jones in exercising his right to burn the Qu'rans, which I'm not. I can accept the fact he has the right to be a douche, but I'm not necessarily in support of it, if that makes sense?

[Nekowolf]

Actually, I think I get what you're saying.

That's the thing about our laws. Our freedom of speech, it's like an all-or-nothing situation.

You can criticize him all you want, until you're blue in the face, and that's perfectly fine. You don't have to support him personally, or his actions.

I accept his right to do it, but shit do I hate him for it, and I'll never give him a lick of favor. Just that he has the right. But I have the right to go out and criticize him for it. If I really wanted, I have the right to go burn Bibles. And he couldn't do anything about it, either.

We our freedom of speech is very much give-and-take. If he wants to go around and offend people, fine. But when HE'S offended by something I do, I have just as much right as what he did.

[RoseCity]

My point earlier was you don't have the 'right' to build something wherever you want. A right implies that it trumps everything; building is controlled in most places by planning and zoning. They can deny you a permit depending on what the zoning laws are. If NYC has given the Islamic Center permission to build or renovate or whatever, then it could go forward. That's a separate issue from the protesters; they do have the 'right' to protest the Center.
I don't know about the 'right' to set things on fire. I don't think it could be a 'right' because here in New England you pretty much can't set anything on fire legally, unless maybe you have a very large property. Fires can spread, the houses are made of wood, fires pollute the air, etc, etc. If it was my right, would the town be able to make laws to stop me?

[Nekowolf]

Ehhh...

As long as it's within proper zoning and stuff, and nothing illegal, I think you do, essentially, have the right to build whatever as long as it's within code. I mean, yeah, you could still be denied, but it would be an unwise decision for them to do so.

I don't think it's a simply an issue of "rights," but rather of something more complicated.

[Lemon&Lime]

He's being fined due to security costs. Not because he threatened to burn the Qu'ran.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/17/florida.quran.pastor/index.html?hpt=T2



We cannot stop having the freedom of speech. We cannot punish him for what he says or does as long as it is within the confines of the law. Everything else though? That's all fair game.

EDIT: Who has to pay for his security over a stunt like this? Taxpayers. His security was being publicly funded. The town decided to levy that security costs to him. That seems fair enough to me. No one ever said there wouldn't be repercussions. Just that, as long as what he was doing was legal, the government, local, state, or federal, could not stop him, and could not punish him for expressing himself.

Security is not a part of that.

Whether or not it says "For Security" or "For being an intolerant twat" on the fine, it's still a fine for threatening to burn copies of the Koran. Don't take everything so literally. It may well say its for security costs, but those costs wouldn't be there if he didn't cause the security threat in the first place. Therefore, even if its not in a straightforward way, it is a penalty for doing what he did.

[Nekowolf]

But who has to pay for all of it? The city's people. The state's people. Hell, if there was any FBI protection, the nation's people.

The government did not step in. They did not suppress his right. He eventually changed his mind and decided not to go through with it.

Everything in the First Amendment was upheld. I see no reason why they should not charge him for his incident. He said what he wanted, it was not impeded upon by any government force. This fine perfectly legal. He can still do it again if he want. No one is stopping him. They're not saying he cannot do it again.

They are saying; "you caused a mess, you take responsibility."

[Doc Doofus]

Thank you Jhd for trying to clarify for me.

Okay, I'll try one more time. IF, like Jooxis, you believe in the absolute right of Rauf Imam to build his mosque wherever fair zoning laws allow, then you have to accept the right (not the rightness) of Terry Jones to hold his immature Koran-burning protest. I don't see it as equal but opposite at all. I called him a bucktooth hillbilly in an earlier post on here, didn't I?

But who is going to decide which religious gestures are good and which ones bad? Because if you think the government should decide what's appropriate and what's not, then just remember that it's an American government of Christians, some of them like Terry Jones, that will decide these issues. To prevent Terry Jones from burning Korans, you would basically empower all the other Terry Joneses to crack down on the New York Mosque and Rauf Imam.

Yes, I know, Rauf Imam is a peace-loving guy. I think so, you think so. But there are a lot of crazy and politically well-connected people that are eager to win the votes of Terry Jones-style Christians by calling Imam Rauf a terrorist, and by calling his community center a bird-flip to the victims of 9/11. So we can even see HOW they would do it IF they could do it -- they would claim that it's the Islam Community Center that is the insult and a threat to public safety, and they would close it down.

That's a very bad path to start down.

So, no, I'm opposed to what Jones wanted to do, but I accept that people like him doing crazy, offensive stuff like that is the price we pay for the religious freedom of people like Imam Rauf.

I heard that when Tom Cruise was making the film Eagle's Nest in Germany, the German government wouldn't let him in because of his involvement in the Church of Scientology, which they have labeled a dangerous cult. That's not good, even if Scientology is crap. We're different here.