Quran burning pastor - your thoughts?

UFOinsider's picture
Rank: Human | 15,561

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp...
Everyone's heard of the Quran burning pastor. I'm posting this here because:
* I know that most people here are pro-American. If you're not, shut up.
* Most people here are relatively intelligent and well informed
* Lots of people here were in the military

...which brings me to my the punchline: Who buys the general's logic that it provokes attacks against troops, and who here buys that it's a free speech issue?

Comments (86)

Apr 27, 2011

The guy may be an idiot, but I think it's a free speech issue

Someone paid the pastor to not burn Qurans and he donated it to charity.

Apr 27, 2011

If people can picket funerals, he can do whatever he wants

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

Apr 27, 2011

except a jury in Dearborn, MI says that he would be disturbing the peace if he were to protest at a mosque and won't allow him to do it... apparently nobody can do this to the WBC?

If your dreams don't scare you, then they are not big enough.

"There are two types of people in this world: People who say they pee in the shower, and dirty fucking liars."-Louis C.K.

Apr 27, 2011

I suppose he should be allowed to do that under his right to free speech, but somebody should really sit him down and tell him to stop being such a moron and poor excuse of a pastor.

Apr 27, 2011

I don't know if this is intentional but his whole routine is a great counter to the NYC Mosque debate. Both issues (mosque building near WTC and burning Qurans) are legal to do, however both are in bad taste and should be avoided.

All religions suck, just a license to act batshit insane all in the name of God/Allah/Yahweh

Apr 27, 2011

The two aren't mutually exclusive. It's both a free speech issue and inciting violence. Speech isn't free, it's just (generally) protected from prior restraint. What the pastor did is equivalent to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. He can do it, but he knew what was going to happen. People died as a result of his actions, he provided aid to our enemies, and he should be charged with accessory to murder.

Apr 27, 2011
drexelalum11:

The two aren't mutually exclusive. It's both a free speech issue and inciting violence. Speech isn't free, it's just (generally) protected from prior restraint. What the pastor did is equivalent to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. He can do it, but he knew what was going to happen. People died as a result of his actions, he provided aid to our enemies, and he should be charged with accessory to murder.

This is where I don't agree with you. Don't see how it is "inciting violence" at all. What he proposed to do was a carefully controlled and highly symbolic burning of the Quran.

Fundamentalist groups in the Middle East are waving around AK's, shooting them off into the air, lighting shit on fire, etc... not the same case at all.

Apr 27, 2011
drexelalum11:

The two aren't mutually exclusive. It's both a free speech issue and inciting violence. Speech isn't free, it's just (generally) protected from prior restraint. What the pastor did is equivalent to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. He can do it, but he knew what was going to happen. People died as a result of his actions, he provided aid to our enemies, and he should be charged with accessory to murder.

I disagree. The act of yelling fire in a crowded theater represents a physical, tangible danger to those that don't leave (if there is an actual fire). What is the difference between Pastor Jones burning a Quran and a Dr. Seuss book? The words on the pages?

I agree with you in the sense that he knew the consequences of his actions, but you can't charge him for accessory to murder because some extremists overreact to his actions. Don't give justify their brutal overreactions in place of his stupidity.

Apr 28, 2011
drexelalum11:

The two aren't mutually exclusive. It's both a free speech issue and inciting violence. Speech isn't free, it's just (generally) protected from prior restraint. What the pastor did is equivalent to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. He can do it, but he knew what was going to happen. People died as a result of his actions, he provided aid to our enemies, and he should be charged with accessory to murder.

This is preposterous.

Apr 28, 2011
Sterling Archer:
drexelalum11:

The two aren't mutually exclusive. It's both a free speech issue and inciting violence. Speech isn't free, it's just (generally) protected from prior restraint. What the pastor did is equivalent to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. He can do it, but he knew what was going to happen. People died as a result of his actions, he provided aid to our enemies, and he should be charged with accessory to murder.

This is preposterous.

Agreed, how could burning the Qu'ran possibly be considered as "aid" or "comfort"...it seems like the exact opposite in my mind.

Regards

Apr 27, 2011

They think nothing of burning American flags but when one of our idiots burns Qurans its suddenly over the top? We cant be responsible for every bumfuck instigator using free speech to get a reaction.

Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art - Andy Warhol

Apr 27, 2011

I didn't say it was the same as fundamentalist groups in the Middle East. I think we should kill all those fuckers.

However, it is the exact same as yelling fire - it doesn't matter what his reason for doing it was, he could reasonably have expected that people would die as a result. My issue isn't that it gave fundamentalists an excuse for violence, but that it pushed moderates further towards fundamentalism. The city in Afghanistan where the UN consulate was attacked and Ghurkas (under orders not to fire) and diplomats died was known as a comparatively moderate place, but this event was enough to provoke its populace into murder.

Apr 27, 2011
drexelalum11:

I didn't say it was the same as fundamentalist groups in the Middle East. I think we should kill all those fuckers.

However, it is the exact same as yelling fire - it doesn't matter what his reason for doing it was, he could reasonably have expected that people would die as a result. My issue isn't that it gave fundamentalists an excuse for violence, but that it pushed moderates further towards fundamentalism. The city in Afghanistan where the UN consulate was attacked and Ghurkas (under orders not to fire) and diplomats died was known as a comparatively moderate place, but this event was enough to provoke its populace into murder.

That may have been the end result but that is the result of our individual rights schema--the outcome could have been the death of a few diplomats... or it could have sparked the civil rights movement. Some types of speech are incendiary by nature, and I hope you are not judging the validity of a speech act by its consequences. What about American women who flaunt their bodies in the US? Surely their speech act is fueling the anger of fundamentalist groups... it's a slippery slope my friend.

I question his qualifications as a pastor and his sense of moral responsibility, but that is separate from the act and I can live with stupid people like him.

Apr 27, 2011
Solidarity:

...What about American women who flaunt their bodies in the US? Surely their speech act is fueling the anger of fundamentalist groups... it's a slippery slope my friend...

This is my issue with the situation. I don't think it's a smart thing and probably not the most Christ like thing to do, so I can't say I would proudly be a member of his church, but you are right, the slope is slippery. We can not give into the demands of terrorist. If we start getting underground terrorist videos that threaten to blow shit up or to kill Americans (here or on foreign soil) if anyone goes to church on Sunday...what do you do then? Do you ban church or football or bikinis because doing so might cause crazy people to commit crimes?

In my opinion blaming this guy for the death of anyone is like labeling a rape victim's clothes as the reason for the rape. Could the girl have worn more conservative clothing? Sure. Have only chicks with their tits hanging out been raped? No. Pointing you finger at this pastor (or the clothes) is merely an excuse, it is not the reason the people rioted and killed others...they did that because they subscribe to a religion of hate and intolerance, where outlandish reactions are acceptable. In recent history, how many times have Christians endured the image of Christ being defiled or pissed on or rubbed with feces, etc. all in the name of art...without rioting and murdering people?

Regards

Apr 27, 2011

i though the purpose of Christianity was to be a model of Jesus. Jesus would be out trying to convert Muslims & traveling to foreign lands to convert the lost from the evils of satin.

What people like this pastor have wrong is that being a christian should mean you turn the other cheek. It is clear this pastor is not a follower of the lord but a follower of men.

Apr 27, 2011

I think it's a bit of BS coming from a general and we should not and can not allow our country to be extorted by terrorist. He claims that it is nothing more than an excuse for Muslims to kill Americans...but surely they don't need our help, they have the Qu'ran, which gives them plenty of instruction on why to hate other people.

This country is bending over backwards to provide comfort and aide to the people that don't respect nor obey our laws or way of life, and it is all being under the guise of political correctness.

And before people start bitching about me being intolerant towards a religion founded on the principles of peace and love, etc...stop drinking the Kool-Aid. I used to spit the same rhetoric that Obama and many other political and religious leaders do...that Islam is a religion of peace, that is being corrupted by a few extremists...but that just isn't the truth. The Qu'ran is the basis of the Islamic religion and believed by most (maybe even all) Muslims to be the literal, verbatim words of Allah. If anyone has ever taken the time to read through this deviant and perverse 'holy scripture' then they would know what ridiculous and inexcusable acts which are outlined in some of the surahs. These acts include, but are not limited to...murdering non-believers; condemning the believers who sit at home and "receive no hurt"; the stoning of adulterers (which typically are woman, since they carry the burden of sexual responsibility)...what does that mean? That means if a woman is drugged and raped that she is guilty of adultery; the beating of wives (assuming they aren't following orders); slaves; sex with slaves (because "thy right hand possesses"); pedophilia (of sorts); implied homosexuality (though only in paradise). The list could continue, but I suppose the point is made.

Anyways, here is a video I posted in another thread recently, though it probably applies more to this one...

Please ignore the last 20 seconds of the video, for obvious reasons.

Regards

Apr 27, 2011
cphbravo96:

And before people start bitching about me being intolerant towards a religion founded on the principles of peace and love, etc...stop drinking the Kool-Aid. I used to spit the same rhetoric that Obama and many other political and religious leaders do...that Islam is a religion of peace, that is being corrupted by a few extremists...but that just isn't the truth. The Qu'ran is the basis of the Islamic religion and believed by most (maybe even all) Muslims to be the literal, verbatim words of Allah. If anyone has ever taken the time to read through this deviant and perverse 'holy scripture' then they would know what ridiculous and inexcusable acts which are outlined in some of the surahs. These acts include, but are not limited to...murdering non-believers; condemning the believers who sit at home and "receive no hurt"; the stoning of adulterers (which typically are woman, since they carry the burden of sexual responsibility)...what does that mean? That means if a woman is drugged and raped that she is guilty of adultery; the beating of wives (assuming they aren't following orders); slaves; sex with slaves (because "thy right hand possesses"); pedophilia (of sorts); implied homosexuality (though only in paradise). The list could continue, but I suppose the point is made.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI

Apr 27, 2011
drexelalum11:
cphbravo96:

And before people start bitching about me being intolerant towards a religion founded on the principles of peace and love, etc...stop drinking the Kool-Aid. I used to spit the same rhetoric that Obama and many other political and religious leaders do...that Islam is a religion of peace, that is being corrupted by a few extremists...but that just isn't the truth. The Qu'ran is the basis of the Islamic religion and believed by most (maybe even all) Muslims to be the literal, verbatim words of Allah. If anyone has ever taken the time to read through this deviant and perverse 'holy scripture' then they would know what ridiculous and inexcusable acts which are outlined in some of the surahs. These acts include, but are not limited to...murdering non-believers; condemning the believers who sit at home and "receive no hurt"; the stoning of adulterers (which typically are woman, since they carry the burden of sexual responsibility)...what does that mean? That means if a woman is drugged and raped that she is guilty of adultery; the beating of wives (assuming they aren't following orders); slaves; sex with slaves (because "thy right hand possesses"); pedophilia (of sorts); implied homosexuality (though only in paradise). The list could continue, but I suppose the point is made.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't know what your point is. Is it that Christians are level headed enough not to abide by archaic laws/rules outlined in the Bible or is it to point out that many Muslims aren't?

Regards

EDITED

Apr 27, 2011
cphbravo96:

I think it's a bit of BS coming from a general and we should not and can not allow our country to be extorted by terrorist. He claims that it is nothing more than an excuse for Muslims to kill Americans...but surely they don't need our help, they have the Qu'ran, which gives them plenty of instruction on why to hate other people.

This country is bending over backwards to provide comfort and aide to the people that don't respect nor obey our laws or way of life, and it is all being under the guise of political correctness.

And before people start bitching about me being intolerant towards a religion founded on the principles of peace and love, etc...stop drinking the Kool-Aid. I used to spit the same rhetoric that Obama and many other political and religious leaders do...that Islam is a religion of peace, that is being corrupted by a few extremists...but that just isn't the truth. The Qu'ran is the basis of the Islamic religion and believed by most (maybe even all) Muslims to be the literal, verbatim words of Allah. If anyone has ever taken the time to read through this deviant and perverse 'holy scripture' then they would know what ridiculous and inexcusable acts which are outlined in some of the surahs. These acts include, but are not limited to...murdering non-believers; condemning the believers who sit at home and "receive no hurt"; the stoning of adulterers (which typically are woman, since they carry the burden of sexual responsibility)...what does that mean? That means if a woman is drugged and raped that she is guilty of adultery; the beating of wives (assuming they aren't following orders); slaves; sex with slaves (because "thy right hand possesses"); pedophilia (of sorts); implied homosexuality (though only in paradise). The list could continue, but I suppose the point is made.

Anyways, here is a video I posted in another thread recently, though it probably applies more to this one...

Please ignore the last 20 seconds of the video, for obvious reasons.

Regards

The stuff in the Qu'ran is honestly no more violent or disturbing than some of the scriptures in the Bible, and historically a hell of allot more people died in the name of Christianity. One thing you have to realize is that most Muslim countries, while rich in natural resources, have enormous income disparities. Most people live in 2nd/3rd world conditions, and in some ways its understandable that many Muslims take the Qu'ran literally. They are living in a backward society where literally everything (law, customs, culture, tradition) comes directly from it. When people have so little in their life they often turn to religion.

Apr 27, 2011
awm55:
cphbravo96:

I think it's a bit of BS coming from a general and we should not and can not allow our country to be extorted by terrorist. He claims that it is nothing more than an excuse for Muslims to kill Americans...but surely they don't need our help, they have the Qu'ran, which gives them plenty of instruction on why to hate other people.

This country is bending over backwards to provide comfort and aide to the people that don't respect nor obey our laws or way of life, and it is all being under the guise of political correctness.

And before people start bitching about me being intolerant towards a religion founded on the principles of peace and love, etc...stop drinking the Kool-Aid. I used to spit the same rhetoric that Obama and many other political and religious leaders do...that Islam is a religion of peace, that is being corrupted by a few extremists...but that just isn't the truth. The Qu'ran is the basis of the Islamic religion and believed by most (maybe even all) Muslims to be the literal, verbatim words of Allah. If anyone has ever taken the time to read through this deviant and perverse 'holy scripture' then they would know what ridiculous and inexcusable acts which are outlined in some of the surahs. These acts include, but are not limited to...murdering non-believers; condemning the believers who sit at home and "receive no hurt"; the stoning of adulterers (which typically are woman, since they carry the burden of sexual responsibility)...what does that mean? That means if a woman is drugged and raped that she is guilty of adultery; the beating of wives (assuming they aren't following orders); slaves; sex with slaves (because "thy right hand possesses"); pedophilia (of sorts); implied homosexuality (though only in paradise). The list could continue, but I suppose the point is made.

Anyways, here is a video I posted in another thread recently, though it probably applies more to this one...

Please ignore the last 20 seconds of the video, for obvious reasons.

Regards

The stuff in the Qu'ran is honestly no more violent or disturbing than some of the scriptures in the Bible, and historically a hell of allot more people died in the name of Christianity. One thing you have to realize is that most Muslim countries, while rich in natural resources, have enormous income disparities. Most people live in 2nd/3rd world conditions, and in some ways its understandable that many Muslims take the Qu'ran literally. They are living in a backward society where literally everything (law, customs, culture, tradition) comes directly from it. When people have so little in their life they often turn to religion.

That is a valid point, to some extent, but what about the political figures, judges and leaders, etc.? Presumably some of those folks are wealthy and thus educated, so they shouldn't abide by the insane rules that the poor do, but for some reason seem to enforce it wholeheartedly.

And historically Christians may have killed more people than Muslims, but I was under the impression we were talking about the two religions in their current state. Sure the happenings of the past don't bode well for Christians, but at least they've managed to get their heads out of their asses...save for a few nut jobs (Westboro Baptist Church, etc.). As for Muslims and predominately Muslim nations, they actively seek out Christians and murder them, to this very day.

The bottom line remains. Many current Christians follow the teachings of Christ and therefor base their faith and moral decisions on the New Testament. Many current Muslims follow the teachings of Muhammed, which is the exact same now as it was day one...murder, death and destruction all in tact. There is simply no debate as to which one is based on peace and love and which one is based on hatred and intolerance. And maybe I'm not the best person to debate the merits of either because I'm didn't study religion and I'm not a Bible scholar, but what I do know is that I grew up going to church and never once was I told it was okay to rape, beat or murder someone as long as certain criteria are met...that doesn't appear to be the case with Islam.

Regards

May 1, 2011
cphbravo96:

but surely they don't need our help, they have the Qu'ran, which gives them plenty of instruction on why to hate other people.

wow you are fucking ignorant. all these people out there making hateful comments towards islam on the basis of what is written in the quran are taking sentences out of context. whenever the quran mentions killing of unbelievers it was in reference to a certain war they were waging. its like telling the US army to go and kill taliban militants. does that seem wrong to u?
go talk to someone that actually understands the religion and isnt out there to just talk shit. do some actual research jackass. the quran clearly states that " to kill another person is as if you have killed all of mankind", and "religion cannot be forced upon others."

Islam is a religion of peace. you would see that too if you took the time to understand it, instead of just googling snippets of hate speech made by other ignorant individuals, like yourself.

May 11, 2011
noobstar:
cphbravo96:

but surely they don't need our help, they have the Qu'ran, which gives them plenty of instruction on why to hate other people.

wow you are fucking ignorant. all these people out there making hateful comments towards islam on the basis of what is written in the quran are taking sentences out of context. whenever the quran mentions killing of unbelievers it was in reference to a certain war they were waging. its like telling the US army to go and kill taliban militants. does that seem wrong to u?
go talk to someone that actually understands the religion and isnt out there to just talk shit. do some actual research jackass. the quran clearly states that " to kill another person is as if you have killed all of mankind", and "religion cannot be forced upon others."

Islam is a religion of peace. you would see that too if you took the time to understand it, instead of just googling snippets of hate speech made by other ignorant individuals, like yourself.

Watch the videos and look at the pictures I just posted...hard to take those out of context.

I like how it's okay to kill "unbelievers" when you are at "war"...but what exactly is "war" for a Muslim. Maybe some of the Muslim members will explain to the "unbelievers" what, in their mind, would dictate that they are at war and therefor likely to kill someone of a different religion?!? What does it take?

Well, for many Muslims, and by judging from the videos, it doesn't take much, in fact, many believe that they are currently in the midst of a war and that their war is against "unbelievers". Hell, Muslims aren't even safe from other Muslims.

Defend them if you like, but you are only cultivating a society were the tolerance of such vile acts is permitted. Just look at how prevalent and accepted the misogyny in the middle east is.

Ohh, how convenient...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-10/saudi-wom...
...and trust me, I have never met a female that I would classify as a 'good driver', but what is being done in the ME is just absurd.

Regards

Apr 27, 2011

+1 blastoise. Satin is evil.

Apr 27, 2011

Blaming the victim is one thing, but this guy isn't the victim, other people are. He's being protected by the US, and innocent people died because of him. I understand how slippery the slope is, and I understand that generals are pointing fingers because it is convenient, but the fact is that what this guy did was bad for US interests.

You can also point the fingers at the media outlets that gave this guy publicity; they should have just kept their mouths shut. I don't care if some nut wants to burn a Quran, and I don't need the NYT reporting on it. Maybe the government shouldn't block him doing this; in fact, I don't think they should. Like I said, it is both a free speech issue, and inciting violence

Apr 27, 2011
drexelalum11:

Blaming the victim is one thing, but this guy isn't the victim, other people are. He's being protected by the US, and innocent people died because of him. I understand how slippery the slope is, and I understand that generals are pointing fingers because it is convenient, but the fact is that what this guy did was bad for US interests.

You can also point the fingers at the media outlets that gave this guy publicity; they should have just kept their mouths shut. I don't care if some nut wants to burn a Quran, and I don't need the NYT reporting on it. Maybe the government shouldn't block him doing this; in fact, I don't think they should. Like I said, it is both a free speech issue, and inciting violence

I didn't blame the victim, I blamed the victim's clothes (in order to make a point). Again, if we are not allowed to do something because someone threatens violence...then what is stopping us from wiring $100B to a terrorist cell that claims they will kill innocent people if we don't? We can't allow ourselves to be held hostage or paralyzed by fear.

Should Disney have been charged with accessory to murder??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney%27s_World...

Regards

Apr 27, 2011
cphbravo96:
drexelalum11:

Blaming the victim is one thing, but this guy isn't the victim, other people are. He's being protected by the US, and innocent people died because of him. I understand how slippery the slope is, and I understand that generals are pointing fingers because it is convenient, but the fact is that what this guy did was bad for US interests.

You can also point the fingers at the media outlets that gave this guy publicity; they should have just kept their mouths shut. I don't care if some nut wants to burn a Quran, and I don't need the NYT reporting on it. Maybe the government shouldn't block him doing this; in fact, I don't think they should. Like I said, it is both a free speech issue, and inciting violence

I didn't blame the victim, I blamed the victim's clothes (in order to make a point). Again, if we are not allowed to do something because someone threatens violence...then what is stopping us from wiring $100B to a terrorist cell that claims they will kill innocent people if we don't? We can't allow ourselves to be held hostage or paralyzed by fear.

Should Disney have been charged with accessory to murder??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney%27s_World...
Regards

There are lots of times that I don't say something because someone threatens violence, either explicitly or implicitly. If I'm in a bar and some guy who's twice my size spills a drink on me, I don't call him an asshole, because I don't want to get beat up. Does that imply that I am paralysed by fear?

Apr 27, 2011
Apr 27, 2011
Nobama88:

Braaahhh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-ELZk_X6_k&feature...

I saw this the other day and was impressed. Not only by the woman who had the balls to do and say what she did, but I was totally shocked that the police stepped up and stopped the Sally tough nuts Arab dude from assaulting her.

Regards

Apr 28, 2011
Nobama88:

Braaahhh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-ELZk_X6_k&feature...

For everyone talking about how tough they are, measure yourself to her.

Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art - Andy Warhol

Apr 27, 2011

Bloomberg made an excellent point when he was defending the construction of the mosque near the WTC site - he said just as muslims have the right to build a mosque, the pastor has a full right to burn the Quran as well

Apr 27, 2011
ILOVENYGUY:

Bloomberg made an excellent point when he was defending the construction of the mosque near the WTC site - he said just as muslims have the right to build a mosque, the pastor has a full right to burn the Quran as well

That's actually not an excellent point at all. While both are expressions of free speech in the face of likely disapproval, the koran burning is an explicit desecration of a religious text while building a mosque near the WTC does not necessarily constitute a monument to the terrorists from 9/11, far from it. The mosque project was insensitive and misguided at the very least, but the two are hardly comparable.

Apr 27, 2011
GoodBread:
ILOVENYGUY:

Bloomberg made an excellent point when he was defending the construction of the mosque near the WTC site - he said just as muslims have the right to build a mosque, the pastor has a full right to burn the Quran as well

That's actually not an excellent point at all. While both are expressions of free speech in the face of likely disapproval, the koran burning is an explicit desecration of a religious text while building a mosque near the WTC does not necessarily constitute a monument to the terrorists from 9/11, far from it. The mosque project was insensitive and misguided at the very least, but the two are hardly comparable.

Both are protected by the constitution you moron

Apr 27, 2011
GoodBread:
ILOVENYGUY:

Bloomberg made an excellent point when he was defending the construction of the mosque near the WTC site - he said just as muslims have the right to build a mosque, the pastor has a full right to burn the Quran as well

That's actually not an excellent point at all. While both are expressions of free speech in the face of likely disapproval, the koran burning is an explicit desecration of a religious text while building a mosque near the WTC does not necessarily constitute a monument to the terrorists from 9/11, far from it. The mosque project was insensitive and misguided at the very least, but the two are hardly comparable.

The problem with that argument is that it's only a holy scripture to Muslims, not Christians...therefor it would be the equivalent of burning a Dr. Seuss book...assuming of course that Dr. Seuss wrote about rape, violence and intolerance.

On the other hand, allowing a mosque to be built anywhere near the site of 9/11, which even you admit would be 'insensitive' and 'misguided', would be a slap in the face to every person in this country. The vast majority of this nation's citizens do not agree with or follow the teachings of Islam...even if they aren't Christians and even if they didn't realize it. Islam is oppressive to it's people (certain ones more so than others) and all but abolishes what we've termed as 'civil' and 'human' rights...something many people have fought and died for in this country (and not just military soldiers)...and for some crazy reason, we welcome the religion and it's followers with open arms. What the fuck is wrong with us?

Regards

Apr 27, 2011

Exactly, it has to do with how they interpret it overall. The countries in the ME (which is predominately where religion based violence occurs) are not as progressive. They haven't gone through the "Age of Enlightenment" yet. What is taking so long? Maybe information didn't flow as freely into the region as it is now with the power of the internet. It will soon change but I don't think blaming the religion is the right thing.

Apr 27, 2011
djr:

Exactly, it has to do with how they interpret it overall. The countries in the ME (which is predominately where religion based violence occurs) are not as progressive. They haven't gone through the "Age of Enlightenment" yet. What is taking so long? Maybe information didn't flow as freely into the region as it is now with the power of the internet. It will soon change but I don't think blaming the religion is the right thing.

Lets just be clear, I'm not blaming "religion" as a whole, I'm blaming Islam, which is their dominate religion int he ME and from what I can tell, the motive behind all of the terrorists attacks, and attempts, we've had in recent memory.

Maybe I'm wrong and maybe you can let us know what is really motivating these people to want to harm Americans and kill Christians.

Regards

Apr 28, 2011
cphbravo96:
djr:

Exactly, it has to do with how they interpret it overall. The countries in the ME (which is predominately where religion based violence occurs) are not as progressive. They haven't gone through the "Age of Enlightenment" yet. What is taking so long? Maybe information didn't flow as freely into the region as it is now with the power of the internet. It will soon change but I don't think blaming the religion is the right thing.

Lets just be clear, I'm not blaming "religion" as a whole, I'm blaming Islam, which is their dominate religion int he ME and from what I can tell, the motive behind all of the terrorists attacks, and attempts, we've had in recent memory.

Maybe I'm wrong and maybe you can let us know what is really motivating these people to want to harm Americans and kill Christians.

Regards

That's what I'm referring to when I say "the religion." I'm talking about Islam. What I'm saying is there is quite a bit of social and economic injustice just as there was in much earlier times in the West. Hell, epilepsy was associated with witchcraft during some of those times.

Majority of the people in the region live in a bubble due to no access to information so it is easy to fool them into thinking whatever influential people (Osama etc..) want to. Religion is their war cry because it's easy to unite people under that cause and blame outsiders for their own problems. It has created a snowball effect as more and more people started to believe. Almost half of Republicans believe Obama is foreign born until hopefully today. See how easy it is to fool people even in todays day and age?

Look at Dubai for example. There is more prosperity and more social and economic justice than other areas in the Middle East. You don't see any extremists from UAE threatening to kill American's in the name of Islam. All I'm saying is blaming the religion and going back and forth is only going to make it worse. We, as Americans, should take the higher road.

Disclaimer: I am not Christain, Muslim, Jewish and I don't follow the religion I was born into.

Apr 28, 2011

just read awm's comments and looks like we touched on the couple of the same examples

Apr 28, 2011

ILOVENYGUY, I must have been losing my mind or something because I really can't figure out what I was responding to. I wasn't arguing against those things being constitutionally protected.

cphbravo, burning a koran is not equivalent to burning a Dr. Seuss book for the people involved for the simple reason that the pastor in question is aware of the symbolic reach of his actions and attaches more significance to burning a koran than other books.

As far as the mosque goes, I definitely don't perceive it as a slap in the face. It's insensitive because it is inevitable that victims will associate it with the religion of the attackers. However, nowhere in the koran was it ever asked that those actions be taken. Like most other religions, Islam has been hijacked for political purposes, starting with the conquest of the Arabic peninsula. The Crusades weren't about religion, they were about making some loot and strengthening political leadership. Al-Qaeda isn't about making everybody Muslims or killing infidels, it's about reducing American influence in the Gulf. The marginal terrorists or people doing 'honor killings' aren't any different than the Waco, TX people or the most hardcore fringes of our Christian right.

Apr 28, 2011
GoodBread:

ILOVENYGUY, I must have been losing my mind or something because I really can't figure out what I was responding to. I wasn't arguing against those things being constitutionally protected.

cphbravo, burning a koran is not equivalent to burning a Dr. Seuss book for the people involved for the simple reason that the pastor in question is aware of the symbolic reach of his actions and attaches more significance to burning a koran than other books.

As far as the mosque goes, I definitely don't perceive it as a slap in the face. It's insensitive because it is inevitable that victims will associate it with the religion of the attackers. However, nowhere in the koran was it ever asked that those actions be taken. Like most other religions, Islam has been hijacked for political purposes, starting with the conquest of the Arabic peninsula. The Crusades weren't about religion, they were about making some loot and strengthening political leadership. Al-Qaeda isn't about making everybody Muslims or killing infidels, it's about reducing American influence in the Gulf. The marginal terrorists or people doing 'honor killings' aren't any different than the Waco, TX people or the most hardcore fringes of our Christian right.

Minus the fact when someone does something crazy in the name of Jesus or God or Christianity there are Christian leaders that openly denounce the actions and speak out against them often explaining that the actions don't follow the teachings of Christ. Yet it seems to be the opposite when it comes to Islam.

Waco, TX...are you talking about the Branch Davidians, the cult that were part of the Davidian Seventh-day Adventists, whom were excommunicated from the church in the 1930s (I believe it was around then)?

These people don't even compare to Muslims, not the ones I mentioned above and especially not those involved in 9?11. The Davidians were breaking the law (not adhering to it) and the few that managed to survive were tried for crimes such as manslaughter, possessing weapons illegally, etc...not launching an attack against a sovereign nation.

As far as Al-Qaeda is concerned...the best way to reduce the west's influence in the ME is to not have hundreds of thousands of troops in the region looking for your crazy asses. At any rate, they've got us and they will continue to feel our influence. The fact is, Americans (in general) want no part in controlling other people's countries, but it is very hard to justify sitting back and watching people be oppressed and slaughtered, especially when you have the weapons and manpower to stop such things.

Regards

Apr 28, 2011
cphbravo96:

Minus the fact when someone does something crazy in the name of Jesus or God or Christianity there are Christian leaders that openly denounce the actions and speak out against them often explaining that the actions don't follow the teachings of Christ. Yet it seems to be the opposite when it comes to Islam.

That's because that's the angle us news media prefers to show. There are hundreds of millions of Muslims who don't approve of what happened on 9/11 and condemn it. Most people here have much better access to statements by Christian leaders and the "scenes of joy" Fox News chooses to blast ad infinitum.

As far as the people from Waco, TX being marginalized in the first place, it would likely be the case of the 9/11 terrorists if they lived in places were the rule of law were stronger and states weren't so poor or close to failure.

Let's not even pretend we're in the Gulf because of injustice and undemocratic states. We're there because as the world's largest economy we have to keep an eye on our interests and that includes making sure the ME doesn't blow up since it accounts for so much of the world's oil production. Afghanistan was a failed state and the situation demanded boots on the ground. But you can't pretend Iraq was asking for it. Going in wasn't rational and the rise of sectarian tensions and terrorism there shouldn't be a surprise.

Apr 28, 2011

What kind of evidence do you need besides a certification of live birth, news paper publication of his birth, and top officials at the hospital claiming he was? This to me would uphold in a court of law is it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt as stated in the due process clauses.

Apr 28, 2011

Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both citizens of the U.S.) may be president of the United States, though from time to time that requirement is called into question, most recently after Arnold Schwarzenegger, born in Austria, was elected governor of California, in 2003. The Constitution originally provided a small loophole to this provision: One needn't have been born in the United States but had to be a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. But, since that occurred in 1789, that ship has sailed.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

Apr 28, 2011
happypantsmcgee:

Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both citizens of the U.S.) may be president of the United States, though from time to time that requirement is called into question, most recently after Arnold Schwarzenegger, born in Austria, was elected governor of California, in 2003. The Constitution originally provided a small loophole to this provision: One needn't have been born in the United States but had to be a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. But, since that occurred in 1789, that ship has sailed.

Haha, if that applies to someone now they are surely going to have a fucked up foreign policy. "Load the ships and ready the cannons, tomorrow we sail for the west!" LOL.

Regards

Apr 28, 2011

Perhpas I should have asked it this way - is burning the Quran making things better or worse. And what the hell does Obama have to do with this thread? that wasn't the question.

Apr 28, 2011
UFOinsider:

Perhpas I should have asked it this way - is burning the Quran making things better or worse. And what the hell does Obama have to do with this thread? that wasn't the question.

What could it possibly make better?

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

Apr 28, 2011
happypantsmcgee:
UFOinsider:

Perhpas I should have asked it this way - is burning the Quran making things better or worse. And what the hell does Obama have to do with this thread? that wasn't the question.

What could it possibly make better?

http://www.orange-cats.com/images/t-shirts2/peace-... I have no idea
http://showmesomethingfunny.com/peace-in-the-middl...

Apr 28, 2011

Unequivocally worse. I can't figure out a single positive except perhaps a sick satisfaction for some.

Apr 28, 2011

I gotta say, I'm loving the somewhat equal representation of all views here. It seems like WSO is usually more right leaning but not this thread. Props to UFO

Apr 28, 2011
djr:

I gotta say, I'm loving the somewhat equal representation of all views here. It seems like WSO is usually more right leaning but not this thread. Props to UFO

I was just curious, really.....

  • Mr. Cheese
  •  Apr 28, 2011

99% of Americans are absolutely ignorant. Who cares if Obama was born here or not? We spend so much time worrying about nonsensical issues that don't affect the life's of absolutely anyone in the country that we fail to see what is actually going on. Social issues like this are meant to insight the masses and divide and distract from what is actually going on in this country. If our president wasn't born in this country, and somehow was still able to ascend to most vaunted position in the free world, WE have a lot more to worry about than we think

May 1, 2011

burn the quran, burn the bible, burn the flag burn whatever you please. it means absolutely nothing, except the false perceptions we build up as a result of 3 basic human emotions fear, love and despise. people need to feel this in order to justify their existence.What if "right"isnt "right" and "wrong" isnt wrong" ? What would you do if one day you realized that everything you know to be true in fact isnt? my word, i am amazed at how much people are brainwashed by gov, society and media. What every happened to empiricism or existential way of thought? i dunno i guess thats just too deep for 99.9% of americans. Im honestly shocked regarding some of the ignorance ive seen on this thread.

  • Mr. Cheese
  •  May 1, 2011

^^^spot on homie

May 1, 2011

Hey, I'm in Europe. It's not like we don't have 90% retards here as well like you do in the US and in the Middle East.

How to consider the Quran burning?

Well, let's say a dog comes along and craps on your door mat. Enamoured by this smell another dog comes along - unfortunately one just that ate something bad, and which pukes on the crap. You go "fuck all this" and have a drink on the other side of the house.

In other words: sometimes things happen that you don't really wish happened, however there's not a lot you can do about them. Is it fantastically great that someone burns the quran? For most interpretations of the world, no. It's not great when people become pissed off without some significant other gain. Is it great that people start telling each other how great it is to kill Americans in return? No, not really.

The followup question is: Do you do anything to make sure it never happens again? This is the tricky part. Because you certainly can try to make something FORMAL, like a law, but remember that this is in a country where people in the past haven't even gotten locked up for hanging effigies from nooses or blowing the heads off politican dolls on stage. Such a law would change a lot of things. Can you try to do something INFORMAL? Yeah, it saves you the trouble of a law, but people take notice. There's a lot of people who usually wouldn't burn a quran personally, but if someone who does gets obviously persecuted, a lot of sympathy could manifest.

Bottom line: There's no point in doing anything. What happened happened. Dogs don't crap and puke on your doorstep every day. Look to tomorrow. Say what you must if you must, but then let's move on to tomorrow.

May 2, 2011

A ridiculous argument.

A woman who is walking down the street in scandalous clothing does not possess the same power over a people as a pastor a religious leader does.

This is NOT an issue of free speech. Clearly if this man was not a pastor and did not have followers then he would not waste a second of his time on burning a Qu'ran. However he does have followers and this is the reason he is doing it; to incite hate and violence and bigotry.

He is not doing it to speak freely.

In a country in which we possess such freedoms, you would think our citizens would preserve those freedoms and not abuse them. Due to his abuse of the 1st amendment, this ignorant fuck has indirectly killed numerous Americans who were not bigots who abused their freedoms (presumably).

May 11, 2011
rothyman:

A ridiculous argument.

A woman who is walking down the street in scandalous clothing does not possess the same power over a people as a pastor a religious leader does.

This is NOT an issue of free speech. Clearly if this man was not a pastor and did not have followers then he would not waste a second of his time on burning a Qu'ran. However he does have followers and this is the reason he is doing it; to incite hate and violence and bigotry.

He is not doing it to speak freely.

In a country in which we possess such freedoms, you would think our citizens would preserve those freedoms and not abuse them. Due to his abuse of the 1st amendment, this ignorant fuck has indirectly killed numerous Americans who were not bigots who abused their freedoms (presumably).

Isn't it pretty odd that the people in which the pastor possessed power over weren't the ones rioting, injuring and killing...despite you claiming that he was just inciting hate and violence and bigorty? How is it that hundreds of people who have never met the guy or ever attended his church were forced into violence and illegal acts yet the people who sit in the pews at his church just went home and ate potato salad?

Something doesn't add up. What about the Danish cartoons? Those incited a lot of violence. What about SNL? What happens if they perform a skit and people say it instigated them into violent acts? Do we shut down SNL?

You are trying to assign blame for the inexcusable actions of people who apparently had no moral compass to begin with. Their actions can't be justified, so stop pointing fingers.

Regards

May 11, 2011
cphbravo96:
rothyman:

A ridiculous argument.

A woman who is walking down the street in scandalous clothing does not possess the same power over a people as a pastor a religious leader does.

This is NOT an issue of free speech. Clearly if this man was not a pastor and did not have followers then he would not waste a second of his time on burning a Qu'ran. However he does have followers and this is the reason he is doing it; to incite hate and violence and bigotry.

He is not doing it to speak freely.

In a country in which we possess such freedoms, you would think our citizens would preserve those freedoms and not abuse them. Due to his abuse of the 1st amendment, this ignorant fuck has indirectly killed numerous Americans who were not bigots who abused their freedoms (presumably).

Isn't it pretty odd that the people in which the pastor possessed power over weren't the ones rioting, injuring and killing...despite you claiming that he was just inciting hate and violence and bigorty? How is it that hundreds of people who have never met the guy or ever attended his church were forced into violence and illegal acts yet the people who sit in the pews at his church just went home and ate potato salad?

Something doesn't add up. What about the Danish cartoons? Those incited a lot of violence. What about SNL? What happens if they perform a skit and people say it instigated them into violent acts? Do we shut down SNL?

You are trying to assign blame for the inexcusable actions of people who apparently had no moral compass to begin with. Their actions can't be justified, so stop pointing fingers.

Regards

My point is simpler: he's a knucklehead. The situation is bad enough, and he is only adding to it. What possible good comes out of his actions? I don't even fault some biblethumpingdumbfuck as much as I do the media: If we are trying to win hearts and minds, why project this image? Hell, I crack my fair share of raghead jokes, but the point remains: if one's actions immediately put a soldier's life in jeapordy, is it right or wrong?

I say wrong.

I'm heavily biased, as half of my family went through the service, I have family + friends over there now, and I'm seriously considering doing a few years as well. I find it shocking that people fail to see it this way. Seriously, I'm apalled. Cause + Reaction = Additional dead soldiers. You're a miltary guy, how does your argument take this into account?

May 11, 2011
cphbravo96:
rothyman:

A ridiculous argument.

A woman who is walking down the street in scandalous clothing does not possess the same power over a people as a pastor a religious leader does.

This is NOT an issue of free speech. Clearly if this man was not a pastor and did not have followers then he would not waste a second of his time on burning a Qu'ran. However he does have followers and this is the reason he is doing it; to incite hate and violence and bigotry.

He is not doing it to speak freely.

In a country in which we possess such freedoms, you would think our citizens would preserve those freedoms and not abuse them. Due to his abuse of the 1st amendment, this ignorant fuck has indirectly killed numerous Americans who were not bigots who abused their freedoms (presumably).

Isn't it pretty odd that the people in which the pastor possessed power over weren't the ones rioting, injuring and killing...despite you claiming that he was just inciting hate and violence and bigorty? How is it that hundreds of people who have never met the guy or ever attended his church were forced into violence and illegal acts yet the people who sit in the pews at his church just went home and ate potato salad?

Something doesn't add up. What about the Danish cartoons? Those incited a lot of violence. What about SNL? What happens if they perform a skit and people say it instigated them into violent acts? Do we shut down SNL?

You are trying to assign blame for the inexcusable actions of people who apparently had no moral compass to begin with. Their actions can't be justified, so stop pointing fingers.

Regards

Look, its obvious to pretty much everyone in this thread that someone who is ex military is going to have a negative view of Muslims. There is a very good chance you got shot at by someone who is Muslim, and perhaps they even injured or killed one of your friends, but to paint an entire group of people as extremists is ridiculous. The vast majority of Muslim extremists come from poor agrarian communities and have nothing else to turn to other than their religion. Should people be able to draw a fucking cartoon without igniting an international shit storm, yes of course, and quite frankly Muslim leaders are terrible at calling for a moderate response to anything that might insult the religion. Burning the Qu'Ran is insensitive, foolish, and a dumb way for some ignorant pastor to make headlines. It does not help the situation in any way, you of all people should know that.

May 11, 2011

My personal opinion is that this is an issue of bravery vs stupidity.

The pastor is merely an insane opportunist seeking the limelight. He doesn't care if he further provokes the situation, and then hides behind free speech. My honest perception is that he doesn't care what happens to those troops. If he wants to go over there and burn a book, go for it. But if someone else is taking the bullet, I see it as poor judgement.

If a general says you are doing something to endanger his troops, you stop doing it. Remember the saying 'Loose lips sink ships'? The idea is that while you're FREE to discuss something publicly, it's a BAD IDEA to do so.

Trust me, I have no love for the shitheads over there, and these people will be crazy no matter what. But if it ADDS TO THE BODY COUNT, I would have some issues with my concience. I'm curious to know why this pastor and the people promoting him don't.

May 11, 2011
UFOinsider:

My personal opinion is that this is an issue of bravery vs stupidity.

The pastor is merely an insane opportunist seeking the limelight. He doesn't care if he further provokes the situation, and then hides behind free speech. My honest perception is that he doesn't care what happens to those troops. If he wants to go over there and burn a book, go for it. But if someone else is taking the bullet, I see it as poor judgement.

If a general says you are doing something to endanger his troops, you stop doing it. Remember the saying 'Loose lips sink ships'? The idea is that while you're FREE to discuss something publicly, it's a BAD IDEA to do so.

Trust me, I have no love for the shitheads over there, and these people will be crazy no matter what. But if it ADDS TO THE BODY COUNT, I would have some issues with my concience. I'm curious to know why this pastor doesn't.

WWJD? Well he sure as hell wouldn't have burned the koran/quran/qu'ran/kuran however you spell it. They need to just decide on a spelling and go with it.

May 11, 2011
Comment
May 11, 2011