Happy Atheist Forum

We have briefly, briefly touched on a Qu'ran burning in the Mosque at Ground Zero thread.  This monster has finally taken a life of its own and has become more mainstream and widespread.

A little background

Pastor Terry Jones from the Dove World Outreach Center plans to burn the Qu'ran on September 11th.

This sewage filth is bad enough if were done on say a boring day like October 18th, but doing it on September 11th truly does give victory to the radical jihadist everywhere and further demoralizes all the other 99.99999% peaceful followers of the Islamic faith.

This is still not bad enough :shake:

I shake with absolute anger and revulsion that a man who claims to be a pastor, who resides over a congregation named DOVE WORLD OUTREACH CENTER will gleefully and cheerfully reach out to other faiths by burning their sacred texts.

If not for the potential problems it might cause our troops (my brother included), I would fully support it.  Not because I disproportionately hate Muslims, but because I value free speech more than I value the right to be offended.

Why should he care if Christian American soldiers die? They'll all go to heaven.  

You know, we've been known to limit freedom of speech before if it could be shown it was likely to provoke violence. I'd say this fits.

Quote from: "Sophus"Why should he care if Christian American soldiers die? They'll all go to heaven.  

I've an atheist brother who would have an issue with this.

QuoteYou know, we've been known to limit freedom of speech before if it could be shown it was likely to provoke violence. I'd say this fits.

I somehow think that would enrage a few teabaggers and Faux Noise viewers and we all know that we must keep the teabaggers happy.

Quote from: "Sophus"You know, we've been known to limit freedom of speech before if it could be shown it was likely to provoke violence. I'd say this fits.

What are some examples of times when we have done this?

Quote from: "deekayfry"I shake with absolute anger and revulsion that a man who claims to be a pastor, who resides over a congregation named DOVE WORLD OUTREACH CENTER will gleefully and cheerfully reach out to other faiths by burning their sacred texts.

You and me both.  It's the name that really gets me.  That's the kind of name you expect to hear associated with the Mennonites (http://www.thirdway.com/menno/?Topic=23_Basic+Beliefs).

 - Diosjenin -

Quote from: "Reginus"

Quote from: "Sophus"You know, we've been known to limit freedom of speech before if it could be shown it was likely to provoke violence. I'd say this fits.

What are some examples of times when we have done this?

Hate speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech) is one example. Also...

Quote from: "The Supreme Court;i]Brandenburg v. Ohio[/i]"] that speech advocating violence is protected unless the speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

Trouble here I suppose is: is it lawless action? considering it is, after all, war.

There are other forms of speech which are not protected as well, such as character assassination.

QuoteI've an atheist brother who would have an issue with this.

I was only being sardonic toward this very type of mentality; mocking it. Didn't actually mean it myself.

Quote from: "Sophus"I was only being sardonic toward this very type of mentality; mocking it. Didn't actually mean it myself.

I had figured as much.  I was merely using moist language to say that there are indeed atheists in foxholes.  Or in his current case, fairly nice barracks outside of the actual warzone.

I wanted to quote a couple of you but that would be too much work.  So this is a response to blanket all of it.

I very, very generally support Pastor Jone's right to freedom of speech.  This same support derives from supporting an Islamic cultural center (now incorrectly deemed mosque) proposed to be built some distance away from ground zero (now incorrectly deemed built ON ground zero).

Even though I don't agree with Pastor Jones, I am not, heaven forbid, I am not asking for our government to intervene or put a stop to it.  Yes, key world leaders including those in America have asked Pastor Jones to refrain from this activity, it is not the same as a government official filing an injunction in court to prevent Pastor Jones from his free demonstration.  This does not however stop private citizens from exercising their rights to put a stop to it.

What I don't like is that his Church is named Dove World Outreach Center.  You can't slice this name any other way other than it wholeheartedly at least in letter imply that this is a place that wants to reach out to everyone in the world regardless of religion.  With the word DOVE tacked onto it, implies peaceful.

I am sorry, no actually, I am not sorry, but if  go onto doing something so blatantly violent you shouldn't be standing next to a sign with words like that.  I cringe every time I type "pastor" because this is not a pastor leading his people to do what is right.

His actions and with wretched thanks to very particular politicians (read Palin and Gingritch) railing against an Islamic center in New York have really ruined any stride we have made to reach out to those who are different from us.

He has the right of free speech.  He should also have the brains to calculate the fallout from his actions, and act accordingly.  He wants to burn Qurans?  Fine.  Let us not let him dodge any responsibility when Afghan Muslims kill Americans in retaliation for his idiocy.  

Put his feet to the fire, that's what I say.

While the burning of any book bothers me, it is his right to do so.  However, with freedom comes responsibility, so like Thumpalumpacus said, he should not be allowed to dodge any responsibility for anything that happens because of his idiocy.

How to make friends in one easy lessen!.

This asshole is going to get every muslim on the planet mad at the west.

If this goes ahead, i dont think Al-Qaeda will find a better way of getting new recuits if they looked for a 1000 years.

Freedom of speech is one thing, this is idiotic and dangerous.

This would be a perfect opportunity for the Muslims to actually show that their religion is that of peace instead of lashing out at the nearest innocents like a bunch of dumb, enraged animals.
If I were still a Christian and some imam in some foreign country publicly burned the Bible, I wouldn't go and seek out the nearest Muslim and blow his brains out because of it.

Petraeus: Koran burning plan will endanger US troops (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11209738)

QuoteThe top US commander in Afghanistan has warned that troops' lives will be in danger if an American church sticks to its plan to burn copies of the Koran.

Gen David Petraeus said the action could cause problems "not just in Kabul, but everywhere in the world".

Pastor Terry Jones, of the Dove World Outreach Center, plans to put copies of the holy book in a bonfire to mark this week's anniversary of the 9/11 attacks...

Additional commentary.

Quote from: "Har"This would be a perfect opportunity for the Muslims to actually show that their religion is that of peace instead of lashing out at the nearest innocents like a bunch of dumb, enraged animals.
If I were still a Christian and some imam in some foreign country publicly burned the Bible, I wouldn't go and seek out the nearest Muslim and blow his brains out because of it.

Unfortunately not all people are as thoughtful or tolerant as you.

There are some activist Muslims in the UK who wanted to protest about the Iraqi war at the funeral processions of the dead British soldiers. Their application to hold a 'peaceful demonstration' was refused. They screamed about discrimination and freedom of speech. The judge pointed out that they could protest, but not on the day of a funeral procession as it could lead to a 'disturbance of the peace'. Needless to say they didn't bother to protest on a day when a funeral procession was not planned thus validating the judge's ruling.

Burning a holy book shouldn't insight violence if all people are reasonable. But not all people are reasonable so burning holy books will insight violence. The only reason the pastor is burning those books is to insight hatred and violent reaction. This is the thin line where freedom of speech becomes freedom to abuse. Freedom of speech is great as long as each party respects the other parties right to differ and hold there own opinion. How and where one draws the line about freedom of speech is so difficult that in the end no line is drawn. This is when ignorant arseholes abuse the privileges of freedom by forgetting that with freedom of speech/action comes responsibility for the effects of those words/actions.

Yes.  By choosing the Quran and not, say, Stephen King's It, he's wordlessly announcing the target of his demonstration; and then acting as if he's the innocent.

It's bullshit.

Burning any book ought to worry freethinkers, anyway.  Those who will burn their books one day will burn yours the next.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Har"This would be a perfect opportunity for the Muslims to actually show that their religion is that of peace instead of lashing out at the nearest innocents like a bunch of dumb, enraged animals.
If I were still a Christian and some imam in some foreign country publicly burned the Bible, I wouldn't go and seek out the nearest Muslim and blow his brains out because of it.

Unfortunately not all people are as thoughtful or tolerant as you.

There are some activist Muslims in the UK who wanted to protest about the Iraqi war at the funeral processions of the dead British soldiers. Their application to hold a 'peaceful demonstration' was refused. They screamed about discrimination and freedom of speech. The judge pointed out that they could protest, but not on the day of a funeral procession as it could lead to a 'disturbance of the peace'. Needless to say they didn't bother to protest on a day when a funeral procession was not planned thus validating the judge's ruling.

Burning a holy book shouldn't insight violence if all people are reasonable. But not all people are reasonable so burning holy books will insight violence. The only reason the pastor is burning those books is to insight hatred and violent reaction. This is the thin line where freedom of speech becomes freedom to abuse. Freedom of speech is great as long as each party respects the other parties right to differ and hold there own opinion. How and where one draws the line about freedom of speech is so difficult that in the end no line is drawn. This is when ignorant arseholes abuse the privileges of freedom by forgetting that with freedom of speech/action comes responsibility for the effects of those words/actions.

And what of when they burn our flags or call innocent artists to be beheaded because they dared to criticise Islam? To me that is odious in the highest degree. And they don't even have to fear any kind of fallout from these despicable actions because we're so damn civil about it. It's always the same, they threaten with violence and we back down. Yeah, burning the Quran is a terrible thing to do, but the Muslims need to learn that whenever some individual in the west does something which displeases them, it doesn't give them the fucking right to be up in arms about it and burn our embassies or attack innocent people. If they react violently it will hopefully force a reaction from the West which will hopefully make them reconsider their violent knee-jerk reactions.

This whole situation disgusts me.  We don't live in Nazi Germany, and book burnings are very reminiscent of the Holocaust.  Just because we can burn books that we don't agree with, doesn't mean we should, and I really think this is toeing the line as far as freedom of speech goes.

Edit to add, because I know I had said this in a different thread: German poet Heine referred to the burning of the Qu'ran during the Spanish Inquisition by saying "Where they burn books, so too will they in the end burn human beings."  Heine was one of the authors whose books were burned during the Holocaust.

The only reason this poses any potential problem for troops (or anyone else for that matter) is because the fucking media are plastering it on every front page of every newspaper and TV show. It is only one guy with a small congregation for fucks sake! He doesn't deserve the air time. If the god damn media just didn't report it, there wouldn't be an issue. The media have so much gore on their hands. They need neutering.

The shit storm this is going to create.......  :upset:  

Quote from: "karadan"The only reason this poses any potential problem for troops (or anyone else for that matter) is because the fucking media are plastering it on every front page of every newspaper and TV show. It is only one guy with a small congregation for fucks sake! He doesn't deserve the air time. If the god damn media just didn't report it, there wouldn't be an issue. The media have so much gore on their hands. They need neutering.

The shit storm this is going to create.......  :upset:  

This is why responsible journalism is now an oxymoron. But, don't forget we want it this way. We want to see the dishonest politician. So if we let the journalist decide what needs to be reported how do we know what is going on? The 'responsible' bit would be reporting the book burning issue in the correct context of a little blow hard preacher in a backwater town trying to get publicity and 'God Points'.

Quote from: "Har"

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Har"This would be a perfect opportunity for the Muslims to actually show that their religion is that of peace instead of lashing out at the nearest innocents like a bunch of dumb, enraged animals.
If I were still a Christian and some imam in some foreign country publicly burned the Bible, I wouldn't go and seek out the nearest Muslim and blow his brains out because of it.

Unfortunately not all people are as thoughtful or tolerant as you.

There are some activist Muslims in the UK who wanted to protest about the Iraqi war at the funeral processions of the dead British soldiers. Their application to hold a 'peaceful demonstration' was refused. They screamed about discrimination and freedom of speech. The judge pointed out that they could protest, but not on the day of a funeral procession as it could lead to a 'disturbance of the peace'. Needless to say they didn't bother to protest on a day when a funeral procession was not planned thus validating the judge's ruling.

Burning a holy book shouldn't insight violence if all people are reasonable. But not all people are reasonable so burning holy books will insight violence. The only reason the pastor is burning those books is to insight hatred and violent reaction. This is the thin line where freedom of speech becomes freedom to abuse. Freedom of speech is great as long as each party respects the other parties right to differ and hold there own opinion. How and where one draws the line about freedom of speech is so difficult that in the end no line is drawn. This is when ignorant arseholes abuse the privileges of freedom by forgetting that with freedom of speech/action comes responsibility for the effects of those words/actions.

And what of when they burn our flags or call innocent artists to be beheaded because they dared to criticise Islam? To me that is odious in the highest degree. And they don't even have to fear any kind of fallout from these despicable actions because we're so damn civil about it. It's always the same, they threaten with violence and we back down.

I agree with you up to a point. Just because a troll trolls one does that mean one has to react as the troll desires. Would reacting as the troll desires be the right thing to do? Extremists want you to be scared of them. And in this case reacting to the acts of a few nutters by demonising the majority is exactly what the nutters want. You're doing their job for them. Take a Muslim family walking in a park. What do the nutters want you to do, walk past and shun them or be polite and say good afternoon, or whatever? I'm sure it's obvious the nutters want us to abuse their fellow Muslims so they start to hate us too.

Quote from: "Har"Yeah, burning the Quran is a terrible thing to do, but the Muslims need to learn that whenever some individual in the west does something which displeases them, it doesn't give them the fucking right to be up in arms about it and burn our embassies or attack innocent people. If they react violently it will hopefully force a reaction from the West which will hopefully make them reconsider their violent knee-jerk reactions.

Sorry but an escalation of violence helps who? If your going to fight you do so to win and you use the appropriate weapons, tactics and strategies to do so. Reacting to violence with violence is not always the right thing. Take the body count of 9/11 vs that in Afghanistan + Iraq. Are Afghanistan and Iraq less likely to have people in them that hate the US than Britain now than before? I doubt it. Violence is often the first reaction, but isn't always the best.

The cure to theism is a good solid scientific education, not a gun to the head.

Quote from: "Tank"The only reason the pastor is burning those books is to insight hatred and violent reaction. This is the thin line where freedom of speech becomes freedom to abuse.

I completely disagree.  the offended has made as much of a choice to be offended as the offender has made in his choice of words.  "Cracker" and "nigger" are identical terms as far as overt racism goes, yet one of these is more likely to incite violence and the other is more likely to garner laughs.  The statement is only as powerful as the respondent makes it.  This church is a troll and the Muslim reaction to it means that it's working.

QuoteFreedom of speech is great as long as each party respects the other parties right to differ and hold there own opinion. How and where one draws the line about freedom of speech is so difficult that in the end no line is drawn. This is when ignorant arseholes abuse the privileges of freedom by forgetting that with freedom of speech/action comes responsibility for the effects of those words/actions.

Freedom of speech is what it is.  The response to it is often unnecessarily severe.  You have the right to call me a stupid americunt, I do not have the right to kil you for it.  People seem to forget that.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "karadan"The only reason this poses any potential problem for troops (or anyone else for that matter) is because the fucking media are plastering it on every front page of every newspaper and TV show. It is only one guy with a small congregation for fucks sake! He doesn't deserve the air time. If the god damn media just didn't report it, there wouldn't be an issue. The media have so much gore on their hands. They need neutering.

The shit storm this is going to create.......  :upset:  

This is why responsible journalism is now an oxymoron. But, don't forget we want it this way. We want to see the dishonest politician. So if we let the journalist decide what needs to be reported how do we know what is going on? The 'responsible' bit would be reporting the book burning issue in the correct context of a little blow hard preacher in a backwater town trying to get publicity and 'God Points'.

Exactly. Just give it a tiny segment in the very back of a paper and then forget the idiot.

Quote from: "Tank"The cure to theism is a good solid scientific education, not a gun to the head.

Theism isn't a disease.

If we back down to every Muslim threat, they win.  If we pull cartoons that feature Muhammed every time someone gets stabbed over it, pretty soon South Park won't be airing super friends episodes.  If we teach them that violence gets them their desire, violence will be all we get from them.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Tank"The cure to theism is a good solid scientific education, not a gun to the head.

Theism isn't a disease.

If we back down to every Muslim threat, they win.  If we pull cartoons that feature Muhammed every time someone gets stabbed over it, pretty soon South Park won't be airing super friends episodes.  If we teach them that violence gets them their desire, violence will be all we get from them.

Drawing cartoons is one thing. Burning holy books is a whole different ball park.

There was a facebook group started where people were going to burn the koran. We saw no mention of this in the media apart from a small segment in a few online news sources. That group had over 1000 members.

This loony in Florida has, what, a 50-strong congregation?  He's getting way too much air time.

Quote from: "karadan"Drawing cartoons is one thing. Burning holy books is a whole different ball park.

No it isn't, not in this context.

QuoteThis loony in Florida has, what, a 50-strong congregation?  He's getting way too much air time.

Agreed.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Tank"The only reason the pastor is burning those books is to insight hatred and violent reaction. This is the thin line where freedom of speech becomes freedom to abuse.

I completely disagree.  the offended has made as much of a choice to be offended as the offender has made in his choice of words.  "Cracker" and "nigger" are identical terms as far as overt racism goes, yet one of these is more likely to incite violence and the other is more likely to garner laughs.  The statement is only as powerful as the respondent makes it.  This church is a troll and the Muslim reaction to it means that it's working.

I completely disagree with me to. I stated as much above the bit you quoted. IF and that's a huge IF a person can control their feelings sufficiently not to rise to a person trying to offend them then all well and good. But the offended does not have as much choice as the offender. Humans are emotional before they are logical. Why do you think people love each other? There is no logic to love, none whatsoever, but it's possibly the biggest positive motivating emotion one can experience.  So the offender comes up with their plan logically to offend emotionally knowing that their target will have to overcome their initial emotional reaction. If one is going for shotgun offence one can be pretty sure somebody will have a hissy fit before they can get control of their emotions.  

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

QuoteFreedom of speech is great as long as each party respects the other parties right to differ and hold there own opinion. How and where one draws the line about freedom of speech is so difficult that in the end no line is drawn. This is when ignorant arseholes abuse the privileges of freedom by forgetting that with freedom of speech/action comes responsibility for the effects of those words/actions.

Freedom of speech is what it is.  The response to it is often unnecessarily severe.  You have the right to call me a stupid americunt, I do not have the right to kil you for it.  People seem to forget that.

I agree that response should be proportional to stimulus, eye for an eye and all that. However what possible benefit could I gain from calling you an americunt in the first place? I wouldn't like it, you wouldn't like it and what would it achieve? Sweet fuck all except the possibility of starting a flame war. I don't get off on offending people (no implication there that you do either) I find it pointless. I will be blunt and honest with people and that sometimes gets me in trouble as my comments are read as if they are intended to offend, they aren't their intended to elicit an honest response.

With freedom comes responsibility that's all I'm saying.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Tank"The cure to theism is a good solid scientific education, not a gun to the head.

Theism isn't a disease.

I am coming to the conclusion that it is but that's a different thread entirely.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"If we back down to every Muslim threat, they win.  If we pull cartoons that feature Muhammed every time someone gets stabbed over it, pretty soon South Park won't be airing super friends episodes.  If we teach them that violence gets them their desire, violence will be all we get from them.

I agree with you to a great extent. I agree that the violent reaction of a few Muslims to cartoons is ridiculous. I am however conflicted about how I should deal with that reaction and my own thoughts in the first place. You see I wouldn't draw a cartoon that I knew would upset somebody and then deliberately show it to them in the hope of causing offence.

Quote from: "Tank"I stated as much above the bit you quoted.

Damn me and my 6am posting.  Sorry if I missed that.

QuoteBut the offended does not have as much choice as the offender. Humans are emotional before they are logical.

I completely disagree.  Aside from the bit that we're emotional first, without the chemical sthat power emotion, our brains wouldn't even work.  Regardless, we treat emotional responses as valid because we're taught to.  We tell ourselves "it's ok, you're human and therefore emotional".  We let people's right to their emotions trump everyone else's rights.  Why?  Because we have emotions too and don't want to be bothered to train ourselves to put them on a tether?  That's why so many people can't be bothered to figure out that the world doesn't revolve around them.

QuoteI don't get off on offending people (no implication there that you do either) I find it pointless. I will be blunt and honest with people and that sometimes gets me in trouble as my comments are read as if they are intended to offend, they aren't their intended to elicit an honest response.

This is exactly what I was talking about.  You felt the need to insert a disclaimer in order to spare my feelings.  Why?  I'm a big boy and I can handle insults, especially when they are completely in my mind.  We need to stop placating people who can't.  And I DO get off on offending people, at least the ones who are too easily offended.  I don't intentionally bait people (not in serious discussion anyway), but I LOVE when someone gets offended at imaginary insults.  To me it's like a brain orgasm.  Why?  Because it means they haven't trained themselves to not have a knee jerk reaction to every minor potential implication of a statement.  If that's how they react to little stuff, how will they react to real-life drama?  If their ego is so fragile that they get pissed off at an opinion I have, they can GTFO.

Quote from: "Tank"I am coming to the conclusion that it is but that's a different thread entirely.

Sounds interesting.  if you decide to start one, PM me a link, though I probably won't need it.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"You see I wouldn't draw a cartoon that I knew would upset somebody and then deliberately show it to them in the hope of causing offence.

That assumes the motives of the artist.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"No it isn't, not in this context.  

Burning books is bad, period. Doing it to incite a rabid response from an already rabid minority is even worse, especially if doing so has the possibility of converting moderates to fundies.

Most moderate muslims didn't care about the cartoon drawings. A whole fuck load of them are going bannanas right now about this koran burning business.

Quote from: "karadan"Doing it to incite a rabid response from an already rabid minority is even worse, especially if doing so has the possibility of converting moderates to fundies.

This is how it is exactly the same as drawing an inflammatory cartoon.  I'm not saying that the church itself isn't retarded, they are for trying to censor something as simple as an opposing religion while pretending to like the freedom of religion we have in this country, I'm saying that it's not state sanctioned, so it's not a successful censorship at all, but rather an event that shows the world how retarded this one church is.

QuoteMost moderate muslims didn't care about the cartoon drawings. A whole fuck load of them are going bannanas right now about this koran burning business.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi54.tinypic.com%2F9ieej6.jpg&hash=aa532009bbbca617aae70215f3cf6c2e9b480b20)

Fair enough. I understand your point but i still cannot condone the burning of a book, no matter what the subject.

I just think the media are loving this too much because they know the fallout from it will get them more column inches. I bet this blows up far more than the cartoon fiasco.

Quote from: "karadan"Fair enough. I understand your point but i still cannot condone the burning of a book, no matter what the subject.

I don't condone statements of hate in any form (aside from trolling, certain hate speech facilitates it SOOOO much), neither do I condone censorship.  That said, I hold the freedom to say something fucked up higher than the freedom to be offended by something said.

QuoteI just think the media are loving this too much because they know the fallout from it will get them more column inches. I bet this blows up far more than the cartoon fiasco.

Probably.

I'm with karadan.  I think the book burning crosses a line that the drawing of cartoons did not.  I can't help but have a very visceral reaction to book burnings because of instances like the Holocaust and the Crusades, where the burning of books was a fairly common occurrence.  The fact that they are doing this on 9/11 makes it a thousand times worse-there's an implied statement that goes along with that, and I don't think it's fair to the good, moderate Muslims in this country.  It's like a big fuck you, essentially.  Muslims were killed in the 9/11 attacks too, so burning the Qu'ran on 9/11 seems especially hateful and disrespectful.  No one is forcing this congregation in Florida to read the Qu'ran or believe in what it says.

I personally think that the church should've  followed a simple order of operations:  1) Think 2) Then, and only then, act.

I don't have a problem with them burning books -- check that, I do somewhat, in the sense that though they're burning a third-rate Bible knock-off now, they would if they could burn the best thoughts of man in the same flames -- but they have the right to do so.

And yes, the idea of anyone getting angry enough over disrespect to a book to get violent is in itself retarded.  That doesn't change the fact that there are many, many stupid people out there.  

Without blaming this church for hypersensitive Muslims, they certainly could've put out their message inRE Islam in a manner that doesn't tend to inflame passions  as well as books.

As I've written elsewhere, I think the best answer would be to hold a Bible-burning on the church's doorstep.

I think that the media gives this so much coverage, but I also dislike  how they cover it.  It is just such a matter of fact kind of thing.  Pastor is going to burn books. Some people object. He's received death threats.  I think that in a country where the media rarely if ever gives us the straight truth, the lack of negative spin to this action is puzzling.  This guy should be derided as the hateful, hypocritical, moron that he is everywhere his name shows up in print or on a screen.   Free speech protects his right to give his crazy message, but a responsible media should show the public just how crazy it is.  Show line by line similarities between the Qu'ran and the Bible.  Show the similarities between the tenants of both religions.  Interview American Muslims to show that they are people too.  I know these things are being done on a small scale, but they need to be done every single time that it is brought up.

It's the hypocrisy of the action that is the compelling story.  Not the shear hate.

Quote from: "philosoraptor"I'm with karadan.  I think the book burning crosses a line that the drawing of cartoons did not.  I can't help but have a very visceral reaction to book burnings because of instances like the Holocaust and the Crusades, where the burning of books was a fairly common occurrence...

This whole line of reasoning relies on emotion.  Again, successful troll is successful.

Profile: Dove World Outreach Center (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11226352)

QuoteThe plan by the Dove World Outreach Center, a small evangelical church in the US state of Florida, to burn Korans on 11 September has drawn worldwide condemnation.

Its pastor, the Reverend Terry Jones, says that as an American Christian he has a right to burn Islam's holy book because it is "full of lies".

Despite acknowledging that he has "no experience... whatsoever" of the Koran, he argues that it is "evil" because it espouses something other than Biblical truth and incites radical, violent behaviour among Muslims...

More coverage.

What we don't 'get' is that the Quran is not simply a book like a Steven King novel, or for that matter the Bible. While the Bible is a 'record' of the life and times of Jesus the Quran is the word of God and for Muslims that is much more important than somebody drawing a cartoon of Mohamed. Asking a devout Muslim to stand by while a Quran is desecrated would be akin to asking you to stand by while your mother/father/sister/brother/son/daughter was gang raped. I don't condone that world view at all. But to fail to acknowledged that world view exists and is very real to Muslims is just plain stupid. Terry Jones is just a shit disturbing pin brained moron.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "philosoraptor"I'm with karadan.  I think the book burning crosses a line that the drawing of cartoons did not.  I can't help but have a very visceral reaction to book burnings because of instances like the Holocaust and the Crusades, where the burning of books was a fairly common occurrence...

This whole line of reasoning relies on emotion. Again, successful troll is successful.

Not sure I follow the underlined.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "philosoraptor"I'm with karadan.  I think the book burning crosses a line that the drawing of cartoons did not.  I can't help but have a very visceral reaction to book burnings because of instances like the Holocaust and the Crusades, where the burning of books was a fairly common occurrence...

This whole line of reasoning relies on emotion. Again, successful troll is successful.

Not sure I follow the underlined.

I'm assuming the implication is that Terry Jones is the troll, and that by having people respond emotionally to him burning the Qu'ran, he's achieved his goal.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "PoopShoot"This whole line of reasoning relies on emotion. Again, successful troll is successful.

Not sure I follow the underlined.

*edit* Beaten to it, and more eloquently so by Philosoraptor.

I don't have a problem having an emotional response to this.  Personally, I would distrust a person that wasn't disturbed by this sort of thing on some level.  If that makes Terry Jones a successful troll, so be it.  The emotional response is only part of the reason I object to it, though, on top of other logical reasons.  I don't think an emotional response in this sort of situation is totally illogical or inappropriate, given the history of book burnings.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "philosoraptor"I'm with karadan.  I think the book burning crosses a line that the drawing of cartoons did not.  I can't help but have a very visceral reaction to book burnings because of instances like the Holocaust and the Crusades, where the burning of books was a fairly common occurrence...

This whole line of reasoning relies on emotion. Again, successful troll is successful.

Not sure I follow the underlined.

They're trolling for an emotional response from the world.  Every emotional response to their shenanigans is a success.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "PoopShoot"This whole line of reasoning relies on emotion. Again, successful troll is successful.

Not sure I follow the underlined.

They're trolling for an emotional response from the world.  Every emotional response to their shenanigans is a success.

Yep.

Quote from: "philosoraptor"I don't have a problem having an emotional response to this.  Personally, I would distrust a person that wasn't disturbed by this sort of thing on some level.  If that makes Terry Jones a successful troll, so be it.  The emotional response is only part of the reason I object to it, though, on top of other logical reasons.  

And what would the logical reasons be?

QuoteI don't think an emotional response in this sort of situation is totally illogical or inappropriate, given the history of book burnings.

[italics added]
How is an emotional reason a support of the alleged logic of the response?

Why do emotions always have to be portrayed as illogical or inappropriate?  It's not as if emotion and logic are polar opposites-they aren't.  There are instances when certain emotional responses to a particular situation may be inappropriate, but that doesn't make all emotional responses illogical.  You wouldn't tell someone they were being illogical if they were feeling emotional at a funeral or a wedding, would you?  Again, I'll repeat myself and say I don't think an emotional response to book burnings is wrong.  I have family who lived through the Holocaust, and most of my friends are Jewish with more of a few of them having grandparents who survived the Holocaust.  So for me, no, an emotional response is not illogical because book burnings hold a significant place in the history of tyranny.  I don't really owe you an explanation for feeling that way.

I would feel the same way if they were burning the Bible or a book of poetry.  It doesn't make a difference to me.  I have a problem with the notion that we should burn the books containing the ideals we don't agree with.  It espouses hatred, bigotry, ignorance and fear.  That is another reason why I have a problem with it.

Quote from: "philosoraptor"Why do emotions always have to be portrayed as illogical or inappropriate?  It's not as if emotion and logic are polar opposites-they aren't.

No they're not.  They are, however, different.  They aren't mutually exclusive, either.  They are, however, different.  One does not support the other.  They're complimentary, but they are not mutually inclusive with one another.

QuoteThere are instances when certain emotional responses to a particular situation may be inappropriate, but that doesn't make all emotional responses illogical.  You wouldn't tell someone they were being illogical if they were feeling emotional at a funeral or a wedding, would you?  

No, I wouldn't.  I would merely think it.  Unless it were a funeral for a friend, in which case I would be too preoccupied with my own emotions to be worried about logic at all.  Regardless, emotions are alogical, if not illogical.

QuoteAgain, I'll repeat myself and say I don't think an emotional response to book burnings is wrong.  

I know.  You also tried to equate your emotional reason for this with logic.  If it's right for emotional reasons, it can still be alogical.

QuoteI have family who lived through the Holocaust, and most of my friends are Jewish with more of a few of them having grandparents who survived the Holocaust.  

Non-sequitur.  This has nothing to do with Jews or Nazis (though that kind of censorship, to me, is kind of fascist).

QuoteSo for me, no, an emotional response is not illogical because book burnings hold a significant place in the history of tyranny.  

By that logic the arguments against atheism that invoke Stalin are valid.  Censorship by book burning is a tool of, though separate from, Fascist dictatorships.

QuoteI don't really owe you an explanation for feeling that way.

Of course not, but you DID proffer it on a discussion forum.  If it bothers you to discuss it, I will have no qualms with you bowing out.

QuoteI would feel the same way if they were burning the Bible or a book of poetry.  It doesn't make a difference to me.  I have a problem with the notion that we should burn the books containing the ideals we don't agree with.  It espouses hatred, bigotry, ignorance and fear.  That is another reason why I have a problem with it.

But "WE" implies that this is a government sancioned action that Americans as a whole are ok with.  We're not, we merely understand that speaking out against it is acceptable, while abrogating their freedom to do it is not.  At least some of us do.

How does "we" imply that it's a government sanctioned act?  You're reading between the lines for an implication that isn't there.  We is merely a colloquialism in this context.

Quote from: "philosoraptor"How does "we" imply that it's a government sanctioned act?  You're reading between the lines for an implication that isn't there.  We is merely a colloquialism in this context.

It at least implies the population.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "philosoraptor"How does "we" imply that it's a government sanctioned act?  You're reading between the lines for an implication that isn't there.  We is merely a colloquialism in this context.

It at least implies the population.

Population and government are not the same thing, nor does we imply either of those things anyway.

So then "We" implies you and you alone?  Would you prefer to define your ambiguous term?

Quote from: "PoopShoot"So then "We" implies you and you alone?  Would you prefer to define your ambiguous term?

If you don't understand colloquial language, than no, not really.  You've already missed the point either way.

Quote from: "philosoraptor"If you don't understand colloquial language, than no, not really.  

I do understand colloquial language.  I don't, however, understand who the rest of "you" are.

QuoteYou've already missed the point either way.

Rejection is not a miss.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "philosoraptor"If you don't understand colloquial language, than no, not really.  

I do understand colloquial language.  I don't, however, understand who the rest of "you" are.

You as in you, as in you whom I'm tired of arguing semantics with.  You claim you understand colloquial language, but apparently not without someone spelling it out for you literally.  If my statement was that hard to grasp, I'll invite anyone else to speak up but I don't think it's that hard to intimate what I meant given context.

Quote from: "philosoraptor"

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "philosoraptor"If you don't understand colloquial language, than no, not really.  

I do understand colloquial language.  I don't, however, understand who the rest of "you" are.

You as in you, as in you whom I'm tired of arguing semantics with.  You claim you understand colloquial language, but apparently not without someone spelling it out for you literally.  If my statement was that hard to grasp, I'll invite anyone else to speak up but I don't think it's that hard to intimate what I meant given context.

*raises hand* Yeah, what's this "we" business?

Good news: They were denied the permit (toxic emissions from the ink).
Bad news: They're going through with it anyways.

So I say put a firetruck out there to douse any flames. That would be a much better image for the extremists to see anyways.

Quote from: "Sophus"Good news: They were denied the permit (toxic emissions from the ink).
Bad news: They're going through with it anyways.

So I say put a firetruck out there to douse any flames. That would be a much better image for the extremists to see anyways.

And fine the living shit out of them as well.

Quote from: "Sophus"Good news: They were denied the permit (toxic emissions from the ink).
Bad news: They're going through with it anyways.

So I say put a firetruck out there to douse any flames. That would be a much better image for the extremists to see anyways.

Wouldn't it be good if the firemen just happened to miss the fire and hit the Reverend Asshole instead.

Haven't followed the thread. Just posting to say that I would personally oppose the burning of any book, not on legal grounds (free speech and all), nor on religious grounds (if a holy book is true, I hardly think God will be hurt by burning His Word), but on basic grounds of propriety. We ought to disagree without being disagreeable.

Politically, I also think it's a bad idea, but a pragmatic argument is far less persuasive (to me) than a moral one. All this does is just run the risk of ticking off a bunch of Muslims. What is to be gained in that? That's just gratifying childish desires rather than doing the hard, serious, and adult work of issuing a measured response (or, morally, returning evil with good).

First Amendment rights is really all that's applicable here, and the First Amendment was written to protect unpopular speech. "Safe" speech doen't need a Bill of Rights.

Quote from: "i_am_i"First Amendment rights is really all that's applicable here, and the First Amendment was written to protect unpopular speech. "Safe" speech doen't need a Bill of Rights.

Well, as I mentioned earlier it's more complicated than that. They were denied the permit (toxic emissions from the ink in the books).

Plus, the First Amendment actually doesn't protect all forms of speech. Threats, hate speech, certain calls to violence, certain things that can incite violence, character assassination, etc.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "i_am_i"First Amendment rights is really all that's applicable here, and the First Amendment was written to protect unpopular speech. "Safe" speech doen't need a Bill of Rights.

Well, as I mentioned earlier it's more complicated than that. They were denied the permit (toxic emissions from the ink in the books).

Plus, the First Amendment actually doesn't protect all forms of speech. Threats, hate speech, certain calls to violence, certain things that can incite violence, character assassination, etc.

True, very true.

Quote from: "i_am_i"First Amendment rights is really all that's applicable here, and the First Amendment was written to protect unpopular speech. "Safe" speech doen't need a Bill of Rights.

Agreed. No one should tell these people that they can't do this (at least, not unless it violates some other law, ordinance, or statute, such as Sophus mentioned), just as we shouldn't say that the Ground Zero mosque can't be built. Of course it can. People have the legal right to do such things in this fantastic country of ours, and I thank God for it.

There is, however, a difference in cannot and ought not. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. We are social beings, and we have to live with other people. Sometimes, it is best to put the interests of others before our own for the sake of community. That is precisely how I see this issue. It is, essentially, one of simple respect. I can vehemently disagree with Muslims of all stripes. That doesn't mean I have to be disrespectful toward them.

Certain people have decided to donate arabic bibles to the church so that they will be burning bibles with the Qur'ans.

Quote from: "Jac3510"

Quote from: "i_am_i"First Amendment rights is really all that's applicable here, and the First Amendment was written to protect unpopular speech. "Safe" speech doen't need a Bill of Rights.

Agreed. No one should tell these people that they can't do this (at least, not unless it violates some other law, ordinance, or statute, such as Sophus mentioned), just as we shouldn't say that the Ground Zero mosque can't be built. Of course it can. People have the legal right to do such things in this fantastic country of ours, and I thank God for it.

There is, however, a difference in cannot and ought not. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. We are social beings, and we have to live with other people. Sometimes, it is best to put the interests of others before our own for the sake of community. That is precisely how I see this issue. It is, essentially, one of simple respect. I can vehemently disagree with Muslims of all stripes. That doesn't mean I have to be disrespectful toward them.

Chris, this makes me think.  I gotta think there are a lot of pretty important Christians thinking the exact way you are.  Why doesn't somebody with some clout just ask him not to do this?  Whose is the most famous American preacher?  Why doesn't he just fly over their and ask this guy to stop?  The sate can't stop this, but this one guy with 50 followers can certainly be persuaded to stand down on such an ill conceived Idea. Right?  I can't believe this is going to happen.  On television.  In the United States.  in 2010.   :verysad:    literally.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"Chris, this makes me think.  I gotta think there are a lot of pretty important Christians thinking the exact way you are.  Why doesn't somebody with some clout just ask him not to do this?  Whose is the most famous American preacher?  Why doesn't he just fly over their and ask this guy to stop?  The sate can't stop this, but this one guy with 50 followers can certainly be persuaded to stand down on such an ill conceived Idea. Right?  I can't believe this is going to happen.  On television.  In the United States.  in 2010.   :verysad:    literally.

I doubt one person, no matter how much clout, could do anything about it. The Christian community ought to stand up in strong protest against this, however. Organizations like Focus on the Family, In Touch Ministries, Reasonable Faith, Leading the Way, and a host of others ought to be condemning this publicly. Now, to be honest, I don't know if they are, as I only just heard about this a when I read this thread. I have been rather out of the loop on political issues lately. But to your question directly, there are a lot of preachers, especially of the Protestant persuasion, who firmly believe that they answer to no one but God. In one sense, of course, they are right, but that is true of all of us, not just the preacher. On the other hand, Jesus clearly said, "Do unto others," and He will judge us based on how we treated our fellow man, and in that light, they have an obvious responsibility to their people.

I'll will write an email to the man myself as well as ask a few people I know to do the same. I doubt we'll be able to stop him, but the least we can do is voice our opposition. It's a sad day, I think, for both America and Christianity--for America, because it puts us at risk, and for Christianity, because furthers negative stereotypes that need no help (just as it does Islam no good when a jihadist gets on television and calls for the death of all Jews and Americans).

Focus on the Family,

those guys are a hate group who ENJOY when shit ike this happens.  They don't want to stop it, they want 50 new martyrs for their Fascist crusade.

Huckabee's comments on the matter (http://rope.zhuc.fimc.net/player/player.html?url=http://podloc.andomedia.com/dloadTrack.mp3?prm=9628xhttp://podfuse-dl.andomedia.com/800185/podfuse-origin.andomedia.com/citadel_origin/pods/Huckabee/HuckabeePM_09_08_2010.mp3). Very balanced.

If Huckabee had won the Republican nomination for President, it is highly probable that he would have won the election.

Quote from: "notself"If Huckabee had won the Republican nomination for President, it is highly probable that he would have won the election.

i think so too. He's a reasonable man.

Quote from: "humblesmurph"

Quote from: "notself"If Huckabee had won the Republican nomination for President, it is highly probable that he would have won the election.

i think so too. He's a reasonable man.

I think he's a moron, but maybe that's just me. If it weren't for the fact that these whackos in Gainesville didn't have the permit or were trying to piss of radicals who are going to kill Westerners and Western allies in retribution, I would say go for it. I don't care who's offended by it. Yet to censor art on any level is thought policing. Christians are upset by Piss Christ... So what? I can be offended by anything, but that should never be a reason to strip away your right to say it. We need to break the taboo of speaking illy of religion, not reaffirm it. Hell, that's why we have the First Amendment; this is what the French Enlightenment was largely about.

Those comparing this to the "Ground Zero" mosque are just as ridiculous.

Thing is though, Koran burning will probably happen sooner or later. In fact, I bet Fred Phelps is thinking right now, "Damn, why didn't I think of that?" Somebody will use this to get famous.

Quote from: "Jac3510"Reasonable Faith

Ugh, dunno if anyone else is unfortunate enough to have heard of them but I hate that ministry almost as much as Focus on the Family. The lies and the oh-so selective information that guy uses.   Not to mention the strawmen.....

Apparently, the FBI paid a visit to the Rev Jones, asking him not to do this: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/fbi-urges-minister-to-call-off-koran-burning/article1701409/

Indeed.  Almost makes me wish I were riding a truck again.

Quote from: "philosoraptor"Apparently, the FBI paid a visit to the Rev Jones, asking him not to do this: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/fbi-urges-minister-to-call-off-koran-burning/article1701409/

I wonder if all this talk isn't being counterproductive. Jones is obviously trying to make a statement. What good is a statement if no one is listening? But now that the FBI, Obama, and the media are talking about this guy, it has only given attention to him. It seems to me that he is more likely now to continue with his burning precisely because now he has a worldwide audience that he did not before. I mean, when was the last time Obama talked about any of us?
I think we are only giving him what he wants . . .

edit:

Below is an email I received from a pastor friend of mine whom I deeply respect:

I've received an e-mail from one of the missionaries who is carrying out the Great Commission in a Muslim country and he reports that, in view of what the pastor in FL is planning to do (burn copies of the Koran on Sept. 11) retaliations are already planned in some areas of the country where he is and he's canceling his previously made plans to go into one location.

It is important to note that the Great Commission does not tell the church to go into all the world and burn books, but to make disciples.  As we search the Scriptures, we do not find that any apostle went into any culture and burned their "holy" books and such books were all over the place in the ancient world, so there were plenty to burn.

We do find one example of book burning in the N. T. but that was done by the converts themselves who, after a while, and not immediately upon conversion, decided to burn their own "holy" occult books they'd been using.

It was the converts themselves who did this to their own property and their own books, not Paul who came into the city and preached the gospel and did not burn their books, which would have only antagonized them and would have severely hurt any opportunity for him to give them gospel.  Had any apostle gone into an area and burned their books, it would have been difficult for him to get a hearing.

As I've been reading about the church in FL, I've read that the pastor has previously led one book burning when he and the church burned various translations of the Bible, any which were not the King James Version.

The missionary who wrote to me requests our prayers that the event might not take place on Sept. 11 in FL and that gospel missionaries be protected from any revenge that is planned..........10,000 blessings.........mdh

I post this here just to point out that the Christian community does seem to be fairly united in its condemnation of this--on moral grounds, not legal grounds. I only wish the non-Christian community who are so upset about this would remember this the next time it comes to cross desecration, or even flag desecration for that matter. :p

Looks like it's been called off.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/09/florid ... 1&iref=BN1 (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/09/florida.quran.burning/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1)

Quote from: "Jac3510"I only wish the non-Christian community who are so upset about this would remember this the next time it comes to cross desecration, or even flag desecration for that matter. :p

I have no obligations to respect symbols that mean nothing to me just as you have no responsibility to respect symbols that do mean anything to me. A cross is just two sticks, for crying out loud.

Quote from: "i_am_i"Looks like it's been called off.

Suspended. Maybe.

Quote from: "Jac3510"I post this here just to point out that the Christian community does seem to be fairly united in its condemnation of this--on moral grounds, not legal grounds. I only wish the non-Christian community who are so upset about this would remember this the next time it comes to cross desecration, or even flag desecration for that matter. :p

The last crosses burned in America were burnt by Christians, so I felt no real need to protest.

As far as flags go, I say let them burn; that is political speech, and just as protected as religious speech.

I only wish Christians would quit reminding us of their ongoing "martyrdom", because it's imaginary.  Christians hold the Presidency.  Christians fill the halls of Congress.  Christians press down on anyone who who disagrees -- witness the WTC mosque issue, amongst other issues.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Jac3510"I post this here just to point out that the Christian community does seem to be fairly united in its condemnation of this--on moral grounds, not legal grounds. I only wish the non-Christian community who are so upset about this would remember this the next time it comes to cross desecration, or even flag desecration for that matter. :p

The last crosses burned in America were burnt by Christians, so I felt no real need to protest.

As far as flags go, I say let them burn; that is political speech, and just as protected as religious speech.

I only wish Christians would quit reminding us of their ongoing "martyrdom", because it's imaginary.  Christians hold the Presidency.  Christians fill the halls of Congress.  Christians press down on anyone who who disagrees -- witness the WTC mosque issue, amongst other issues.

And while many Christians are speaking out against this they're also comparing it to the "Ground Zero Mosque" (which actually has a prayer room for Christians and Jews) for their own perverted purposes. The only reason why this koran burning is making such huge news is because the country is so Islamaphobic right now.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Jac3510"I only wish the non-Christian community who are so upset about this would remember this the next time it comes to cross desecration, or even flag desecration for that matter. :p

I have no obligations to respect symbols that mean nothing to me just as you have no responsibility to respect symbols that do mean anything to me. A cross is just two sticks, for crying out loud.

I agree that one does not have to respect the views of others. However that's not the same thing as deliberately doing something, you know full well will piss them off, because of the views they hold. One can possibly debate the a person about their views without antagonising them. But simply desecrating something somebody values is just fucking stupid and bad mannered. A Quran has emotional value for a Muslim, that's a fact. To ignore that fact is to ignore reality and I don't think it's a good idea to ignore reality, isn't that exactly what a rationalist world view is trying to fight against, ignoring reality?

Desecrating a symbol, any symbol, is fine as long as it's not your symbol that's being desecrated. Is that true? What about this?

[youtube:23nc3v43]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzEBp9EV2pg[/youtube:23nc3v43]

[youtube:23nc3v43]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg8tJJw4tTk[/youtube:23nc3v43]

We destroy the outgroup's symbology to reinforce our own ingroup identity. One can't escape culpability from one's actions by dismissing the feelings of others except if one has zero empathy or is a total autist.

Isn't it actually illegal to wear a swastika in Germany?

Quote from: "Sophus"The only reason why this koran burning is making such huge news is because the country is so Islamaphobic right now.

Hmm...  I'd like to see an argument for this.  It might be true, but in a convoluted way that in FZ's words, goes beyond the fringe of audience comprehension.

My observation is that the people making a big fuss over it are largely people who like to accuse others of being Islamophobic but do not consider the term to apply to them.  I have an idea that these are the people who really have internalized actual fear of Muslims, but it's probably a bit complex to explain, so first I'd like to see your justification.

Quote from: "karadan"Isn't it actually illegal to wear a swastika in Germany?

I believe that is so.

Oh dear..  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11258739 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11258739)

Quote from: "karadan"Oh dear..  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11258739 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11258739)

You knew it was coming, and you knew it was coming even if nobody burned a Qu'ran.

Quote from: "epepke"

Quote from: "karadan"Oh dear..  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11258739 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11258739)

You knew it was coming, and you knew it was coming even if nobody burned a Qu'ran.

Yep. Still, it is an unnecessary amount of aggravation over something so trivial. I see no need to stir up such a hornets nest of fanatical hatred.

It's here we go again time folks.

Quote from: "karadan"Yep. Still, it is an unnecessary amount of aggravation over something so trivial. I see no need to stir up such a hornets nest of fanatical hatred.

It's here we go again time folks.

I quite agree with what is stated.  I don't know what is implied.  Personally, I think that it was largely stirred up by people who claimed to be sensitive, but they will never admit it.

It's simply two fanatical ends of a belief spectrum having a shit slinging contest. The moderate 98% in the centre have to try and dodge that shit, lest they be covered in it.

Quote from: "karadan"It's simply two fanatical ends of a belief spectrum having a shit slinging contest. The moderate 98% in the centre have to try and dodge that shit, lest they be covered in it.

No, it isn't.  It's the fanatical end of saying that you are going to burn a Qu'ran versus the end of shooting people before it even happens.  Not even approximately similar.

That's only because christianity has already had its enlightenment. Doesn't mean they're any less fanatical though. This guy is being deliberately provocative in the full knowledge the damage it will do. That, to me, it just as wanton as blowing up a bus to prove a point. His actions are just a few degrees of separation away from actually pushing the 'armed' button - in my opinion.

Quote from: "deekayfry"I shake with absolute anger and revulsion that a man who claims to be a pastor, who resides over a congregation named DOVE WORLD OUTREACH CENTER will gleefully and cheerfully reach out to other faiths by burning their sacred texts.

BUT GOD TOLD HIM TO DO IT!

So of course its okay.

besides, this is nothing for god, here are a few examples of some things that are a "tad' worse than burning books.

"And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under the axes of iron, and made them pass through the brickkiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon. So David and all the people returned unto Jerusalem." (II Samuel 12:31)

Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (Numbers 31:16-18)

"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." (Isaiah 13:15-16)

"And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain." (Deuteronomy 2:34)

"And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Hesbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities we took for a prey to ourselves." (Deuteronomy 3:6-7)

"And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead." (Exodus 12:29-30)

Just a few  

Quote from: "epepke"

Quote from: "Sophus"The only reason why this koran burning is making such huge news is because the country is so Islamaphobic right now.

Hmm...  I'd like to see an argument for this.  It might be true, but in a convoluted way that in FZ's words, goes beyond the fringe of audience comprehension.

Fred Phelps burned a Koran in public at Washington DC in 2008 and nobody said a word.

Quote from: "Tank"I agree that one does not have to respect the views of others. However that's not the same thing as deliberately doing something, you know full well will piss them off, because of the views they hold. One can possibly debate the a person about their views without antagonising them. But simply desecrating something somebody values is just fucking stupid and bad mannered. A Quran has emotional value for a Muslim, that's a fact. To ignore that fact is to ignore reality and I don't think it's a good idea to ignore reality, isn't that exactly what a rationalist world view is trying to fight against, ignoring reality?

Desecrating a symbol, any symbol, is fine as long as it's not your symbol that's being desecrated. Is that true? What about this?

I'm not necessarily talking about desecration, just anything that can be interpreted as disrespectful. The simplest political cartoon can outrage some nuts. If we're going to say symbols of a religion are off limits we might as well say speaking ill of the religion itself is off limits and revert back to the dark ages.

As for the swastika, it has a lot more history to it than the Nazis. A lot more. It's a shame the west still links it exclusively to them. Also, I have no problem with someone burning an American flag. Regardless of context, I must add, because burning an American flag is actually the proper way to put an old dying one out of its misery. This country is far from perfect and anyone who wishes to express that through burning a flag is welcome to do so. Not my style, but so long as they don't set nothing else on fire that doesn't belong to them, why should I care?

Quote from: "Sophus"Fred Phelps burned a Koran in public at Washington DC in 2008 and nobody said a word.

Many of us have realized not to feed the troll.  Even foreigners know he's not exactly an American representative.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Sophus"Fred Phelps burned a Koran in public at Washington DC in 2008 and nobody said a word.

Many of us have realized not to feed the troll.  Even foreigners know he's not exactly an American representative.

Right. But suddenly they're not super crazy trolls anymore when you have so many Republicans (some Democrats) and Sarah Palins speaking out against a group of down town New Yorker muslim's Constitutional right to build a community center. In the past few months the country has gone so insane and hypersensitive to muslims, the media sees this nutjob in Florida as representing this new anti-muslim atmosphere.

Quote from: "Sophus"Right. But suddenly they're not super crazy trolls anymore when you have so many Republicans (some Democrats) and Sarah Palins speaking out against a group of down town New Yorker muslim's Constitutional right to build a community center. In the past few months the country has gone so insane and hypersensitive to muslims, the media sees this nutjob in Florida as representing this new anti-muslim atmosphere.

But the Florida nutjob doesn't have the bad rep Phelps has.  It's not that I don't understand your point or even that I disagree, I'm just pointing out that the public and the world at large are looking at it through the glasses of reputation.  An upstanding pastor has more clout on the world stage than Phlps.  When Phelps does it it's just crazy ol' Phelps at it again, when Florida wacko does it, it's an upstanding American.

Quote from: "Sophus"Fred Phelps burned a Koran in public at Washington DC in 2008 and nobody said a word.

I know that, but I don't recall people not saying that the country was Islamophobic back then.

Still, it is interesting to think about what differences there are.

I can't tell you how pissed I'm going to be if these idiots cause more terrorist attacks here just because they can't help but be bigoted fools.

Quote from: "Whitney"I can't tell you how pissed I'm going to be if these idiots cause more terrorist attacks here just because they can't help but be bigoted fools.

More than last time or the time before?

Quote from: "Whitney"I can't tell you how pissed I'm going to be if these idiots cause more terrorist attacks here just because they can't help but be bigoted fools.

While I agree with your opinion, It takes two to tango.  There also must be fundamentalist fools who regard those books as worth killing for.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Whitney"I can't tell you how pissed I'm going to be if these idiots cause more terrorist attacks here just because they can't help but be bigoted fools.

While I agree with your opinion, It takes two to tango.  There also must be fundamentalist fools who regard those books as worth killing for.

Right...it's just that in this case it's like wearing red around a bull then wondering why you got attacked.  Not that it would make the terrorists any more justified it's just that much more infuriating when people go out of their way to try to provoke an already angry group and then the rest of us have to suffer the consequences.

It may be difficult to tell if another terrorist attack would be due to Koran burning alone (Fred Phelps, btw, is planning to have his own koran bonfire   :crazy:

Quote from: "Sophus"(Fred Phelps, btw, is planning to have his own koran bonfire     )

I sure hope he does it without a permit and gets himself in trouble.  Of course, being in Kansas, he might have an area where he doesn't need permission.