Burn the Koran

Remove all ads!

It would be interesting to see if some of the more ignorant Islamists could be made to see that they too are guilty of similar stupidity. I mean, the ones who burn the American flag, for example, I wonder if it would be possible for someone to say:

"you're offended by the Koran burning? I understand. I can put myself in your shoes. But you know, when you burned that American flag, you made other people feel the exact same way. They have every right to feel as offended as you do. The difference is when you burn a flag, Westerners protest. When we burn your venerated Koran, you riot and murder. Your being offended does not give you the right to commit despicable acts."

I doubt it would work -- a number of these zealots don't respond to reason or decency.* The best option is naked force, IMHO.

* I include Jones in this category, make no mistake.

 

The problem is that the national flag doesn't matter that much to them. As one Muslim explained it to me, "nations come and go; it is the religion that matters." Burning the American flag is how they protest our national policies. But, speaking for myself, I could not care less, since I don't care much for the national policies in a few of those countries as well. But they know that burning the flag bothers some people here.

 

That is a classic projection problem that a lot of idiotic zealots have. The issue isn't whether or not the BURNER cares for or respects the object being burned, what is at issue is how other people feel about what is being burned. Case in point, I don't believe that the Koran is inspired writing. So I burn one, and say "I don't see what you're getting so worked up about, Abdul, I don't believe it's anything special!"

It's that ability to see things from the perspective of those who are different from yourself that makes a person a good person. As a society, I think that the West has done a much better job of doing that than any Middle Eastern country (douchebags like Jones notwithstanding)

 

I think that's unfair, on two levels. First, even as an areligious person, I would say that burning the Koran is a lot worse than burning a flag. I really don't think the two should be compared. If a group of American Islamists burnt a large pile of Bibles, the person in charge would end up been killed by some religious extremist. You won't see any attempts on this Jones guy. Second, this is a civilization (at least those extremists) which feels threatened and is already considerably pissed off - if an animal is backed into a corner, on small move might make it leap. There's no saying that if the tables weren't turned that American's wouldn't be jumping in their pickups, armed to the teeth with anything they could find, in just the same situation.

 

Jones cancelled the burning. I guess he saw the light.

 

I have to break this into two parts:

I would not say a "good person," but I person who is wiser: a person with a better depth of understanding.

As I commented they know that it bothers people here, but they don't burn Bibles, at least that I know of. I think -- and I know this does not apply 100 percent -- that burning the flag is a symbol of protest that they know irritates Americans; burning a Bible would be sacrilege and at least most Muslims don't want to go that far. As one Muslim commented to me, "Most Muslims would never burn a picture of Jesus or the Bible, because other Muslims would resent them doing that to a religion."

But I believe this might be a game changer. We just may see Bibles "in the fire" as a result of this. It will be curious to see how Americans react to public burnings of the Bible -- If Muslims go that far in return. Again, they may or may not. But this guy may just end up getting himself blown-up over this stupid stunt, regardless. Didn't somone on one of the other threads make a comment that, "if you kick a beehive, you just might get stung in return?" That seems to apply in this instance as well. Please note that I am not saying he should be injured as a result of this action, only that he knows he is causing a great deal of anger -- and with the specific intent to do so.

Here, I disagree. I believe many Americans resent most Muslims, as a collective group, for 9/11. Even though it was a political statement (at least in my opinion), many Americans believe that it was an act of Muslims, rather than the actions of a group of far, right-wing extremists (the equvalent of what would be The Klan over here). Keep in mind that The Klan claimed to be "Warriors for Christ" while they were murdering black people.

 

Perhaps we should get all berserk and irrational the next time they stone a woman? As a matter of fact, a book is a book and in every way inferior to a living person. That people get more offended over book burning than over executing people for the silliest things just means they are delusional and need to face reality.

The sad thing is that they (anyone who isn't a liberal Muslim) keep on doing the worst things, and that we cannot even do the smallest thing (like showing *gasp* a picture of Mohammed; oh look: forbidden medieval paintings) because the extremists keep us and countless innocents hostage. Which is the whole reason for our self-inflicted censure: if we do X then they get all miffy and spontaneously combust near schools, police stations and world trade centers.

 

Job done? Next service at his garbage little church will be full now.

 

You are seeing the world through critical, secular eyes, applying rational thinking. For religious zealots, religion is EVERYTHING. And every religion has its share of them.

 

Woah yeah! I agree with Rotku! No way would I say that the "West" has done a good job of putting itself in the shoes of other parts of the world. No way.

 

Ragusa, I take issue with your criticism of the Republican response to this issue simply because I don't see similar criticism of the Democratic response to their side. This is standard fare in politics. If a member of the opposition does something like this, you demonize them as the Devil incarnate and do all you can to link them with the party they claim to support, regardless of their actual beliefs or influence. If it's a member of your own group, you tone down the rhetoric to a minimum of criticism because you don't want to offend your base.

With that note, I would like to point out the following passage to the pastor, though I doubt he cares about little things like what the Bible says:

Spoiler

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
- 1 Peter 3:15-16

 

If an outspoken criticism of a fruitcake like our preacher here would offend the base, what does that say about the base and their views?

To be offended they must sympathise with him, or share views. Didn't you mean to suggest that our guy here is not representative of either right wing Christians, Evangelicals or Republicans?

Anyway, I think that you did make a very interesting remark, and that was when you said "If it's a member of your own group, you tone down the rhetoric to a minimum of criticism". That is it exactly. That is what I accuse you of as far as right wing nutcases are concerned - that you tone down the rhetoric to a minimum of criticism, because they are of your group - fellow members of the conservative tribe.

What does it say about the moral and intellectual integrity of politicians who tone down their criticism so it is barely audible - despite better knowledge and/or for political calculations? Either it is wrong and to be condemned, or it is not. If it is wrong and a member of the group does it, one can be forgiven to tone down the rhetoric to a minimum of criticism? Glorious. But you are right, that is exactly what we see, and it is disgusting.

The current Republican way of doing politics is very ugly and divisive (and prone to ignite the passions of the ignorant and bigoted), and if I have previously linked that to Bush, it has obviously more to do with the party than with their president. And while it may be standard fare (saying that is apologetic towards right wing excess in its own right, after all, it suggests that everybody does it - which may just be not true) in politics in the US today or not - it is not healthy. And only because it is allegedly normal it is not good for the country and the democratic process.

 

What?? Did you not hear the comments coming from the White House? Eric Holder, President Obama and Bob Gates? The Secertary of Defense called this guy personally to ask him not to go through with this stunt.

Here's what Hillary had to say:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39074898/ns/politics

This is especially true of the right. It was Reagan who said that the first law of the Republican Party is to never criticize a party member. For Dems this is entirely different. Take an example: Health care reform. Why did the White House call Howard Dead "insane" for his criticism of Obama caving on the PO in the Health care reform? Why is Robert Gibbs and David Axelrod feuding with the liberal base? Want proof?

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/113431-white-house-unloads-on-professional-left

 

It's not like this hasn't happened before.

 

Sorry - but American politics sounds completely nutty!! Why is this topic getting any airtime whatsoever??

 

Because it's interesting. Some North Americans feel hamstrung by the strictures of the Constitution, and feel that the enemies of Western Civilization are taking advantage of it to damage them. So when someone, even someone as stupid as Jones, turns the tables and does something Constitutional that offends Muslims, a part of us says "yeah, sock it to them, see how they like it!"

I understand the gut reaction, straight from the Id or the Ego, but I also am smart enough to know this particular method is immoral, unethical, and self-defeating.

 

I don't think there is a North American Constitution. Nevertheless, the US Constitution does not "hamstring" anyone except the government. I only wish that the government felt more hamstrung by the document and the Bill of Rights it contains. The Contitution has been abused by every US government in my recent memory.

After all the Constitutional abuses of Bush/Cheney and now the Obama people, you honestly believe that? ...And we don't even know of half the crap these guys have been doing regarding the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Of course, the government has the power to abuse the Constitution while the average citizen tries to protect himself with the shredded parchment barriers that are barely holding it together. But every politician holds up the Constitution when it suits his/her own political agenda. Otherwise, they just ignore it. Good luck getting anything done about it.

---------- Added 0 hours, 12 minutes and 2 seconds later... ----------

Here's a good example of how "hamstrung" the governments of Bush/Cheney and Obama/Biden feel by the Constitution:

http://jonathanturley.org/2010/08/3...allenge-obamas-assassination-list/#more-26260

 

Allow me to explain myself a little miore clearly -- I am of course taling about the US Constitution being valid in the US. But Americans aren't the only ones who feel that political correctness and the threat of violence is being used to muzzle criticism of Islamists. This is not to say that other abuses of the American Constitution have not occurred at the hands of others.

What Jones is doing is offensive yet Constitutional. He is being publicly pilloried by many -- including me. The government is trying to get him to stop being offensive.

What Imam Rauf is doing is offensive yet Constitutional. Rauf is being pilloried by many -- including me. The government is not doing a damn thing to stop him from being offensive.

Sounds to me like the Obama administration is letting itself be held hostage by threats. That's wrong.

 

You mean by "pillored" that people are expressing their opinions in public? In that case, it is the Constitution at work, like it should be. I guess I still don't get your point.

That makes no sense. The government can't stop either party from doing what it is doing. The main concern by Obama, Gates and Patraeus, is that it puts American soldiers at greater risk. But that's an interesting point, nevertheless.

As Commander and Chief, Obama is within his rights to "ask" Jones not to go through with his stunt. He has not forced him to comply. That sounds pretty Constitutionally correct to me.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Milita...d-in-on-Koran-burning-General-defends-himself

 

That they're just like any other large group: composed of a wide variety of extremes, both positive and negative?

Perhaps I should have said 'risk offending some portion of their base'.

I think you missed my point, and probably on purpose. My point is that you do the same thing! I've seen you on these forums post minor criticism to liberals doing completely idiotic and occasionally illegal things that are bound to cause nothing but more problems, where conservatives (myself included) were ready to string them up.

... Wait, you expect integrity from politicians? I mean, I know Germany is different, but is it really that different?

It is wrong, and it is being condemned, on the national stage nonetheless. Your objection is apparently that the condemnation isn't vitrolic enough.

What you are again missing is that it's standard fare for everyone. Obama is doing it! The 'Great Uniter'! Have you listened to his BS rhetoric recently? To hear him say it, you'd think that the CEOs of Enron, Bernie Mac, Fannie and Freddy, the entire Republican party, and the Devil himself were engaged in a grand conspiracy to destroy the entire US. And, of course, that the Democratic party were helpless victims in all this.

You misinterpreted. I was saying that the Dems don't respond any better when a liberal Democrat does something stupid like this. Of course they'll tar and feather a Republican doing it, though.

That the Dems will eat their own when they criticize the leader? On the other hand, what Democratic uproar did you hear over Code Pink's stupid stunts? How about all the 'kill Bush' signs, or even the politicians who went on national TV to say it? How about the NAACP calling black republicans 'house ni**ers' for supporting McCain over Obama? Dean attacked the Democratic Party's platform, which amounts to high treason in politics.

The government can exert pressure. Political pressure, public pressure, financial pressure, and, considering this government, legal pressure (which won't go anywhere, but they could do it if they wanted to). They've chosen to do much of this to stop one case, while also choosing to do some of it to stop opposition to the other.