So if the burning has indeed been called off, will this be *believed* by Muslims around the world? Or will they still assume the burning has occurred? They've already heard about it, they can't un-hear it.
Koran burning
- Thread starter gturner
- Start date
- Status
People believe whatever they want to, if someone hates America, it still happened, even if it didn't, whatever reason they need to fuel their hate, they'll go with and make their own reality.
The burning hasn't been abandoned. The pastor is "rethinking" it because he thinks he got conned by Imam Rauf.
As for the Muslim beliefs about stopping the burning, who's to say which reaction is worse? If the burning is halted it tells them that the West has again shown its willingness to cave in to their threats of violent reprisals if a Westerner dares exercise the right of free speech. If the US government somehow stops the pastor then it means that none of us really has free speech anymore, since we're effectively prohibited from publically saying anything that a Muslim might find offensive. I ask the anti-war crowd here, how would that power have felt back during the Bush years, if the feds were prosecuting anyone who did anything that might have offended our Afghan and Iraqi allies, such as walking around while gay?
Government intervension would also convey to the Muslim world that we really don't have free speech and that our government, if it wants, really can control the actions of individual Americans. That makes things even worse because whenever some private asshat tourist does something that offends them, they'll think it must've been sanctioned and instigated by the cabal of Jewish lobbyists that controls the US government, not that some of them don't think that anyway.
So when the next Baptist Koran burning rolls around (which will probably be in a few months) and the government fails to stop it because of a lack of outrage and press coverage (the public's attention span and patience being limited quantitites), they'll think we're playing some kind of crazy game that requires more terrorist attacks on some bizarre target, such as the diners at a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise in Spain.
For a government to try and keep every one of 300 million individualistic Americans from offending any one of a billion Muslims requires despotism and a complete trampling of the First Amendment, and behind every American asshole stands ten more, ready to let fly with the 'N' word, spout off about Wops, Jews, Wetbacks, dames, and, of course, Canadians. Burning some books is about the least offensive thing such people do. They're normally out womanizing (smacking the dames around), getting in bar fights, shootings, stabbings, and spraying graffiti on synagogues. But we try to stop their criminal acts, not their speech.
As for the Muslim beliefs about stopping the burning, who's to say which reaction is worse? If the burning is halted it tells them that the West has again shown its willingness to cave in to their threats of violent reprisals if a Westerner dares exercise the right of free speech. If the US government somehow stops the pastor then it means that none of us really has free speech anymore, since we're effectively prohibited from publically saying anything that a Muslim might find offensive. I ask the anti-war crowd here, how would that power have felt back during the Bush years, if the feds were prosecuting anyone who did anything that might have offended our Afghan and Iraqi allies, such as walking around while gay?
Government intervension would also convey to the Muslim world that we really don't have free speech and that our government, if it wants, really can control the actions of individual Americans. That makes things even worse because whenever some private asshat tourist does something that offends them, they'll think it must've been sanctioned and instigated by the cabal of Jewish lobbyists that controls the US government, not that some of them don't think that anyway.
So when the next Baptist Koran burning rolls around (which will probably be in a few months) and the government fails to stop it because of a lack of outrage and press coverage (the public's attention span and patience being limited quantitites), they'll think we're playing some kind of crazy game that requires more terrorist attacks on some bizarre target, such as the diners at a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise in Spain.
For a government to try and keep every one of 300 million individualistic Americans from offending any one of a billion Muslims requires despotism and a complete trampling of the First Amendment, and behind every American asshole stands ten more, ready to let fly with the 'N' word, spout off about Wops, Jews, Wetbacks, dames, and, of course, Canadians. Burning some books is about the least offensive thing such people do. They're normally out womanizing (smacking the dames around), getting in bar fights, shootings, stabbings, and spraying graffiti on synagogues. But we try to stop their criminal acts, not their speech.
In this case, yes we do try to stop their speech. It would be negligent not to. We speak out against it, call them asshats, attempt to dissuade them in any way possible, even the General in the field is personally asking them not to do this shit, at least not in such a way, not with the world watching. At the end of the day, they will do what they will.
You can get off the 1984 soapbox now, it looks ridiculous given the backdrop. Switch to decaf, or something.
Nobody is having their free speech rights violated in this case.
Because before we applied negative pressure we rewarded the pastor's meaningless 30 person Koran burning and BBQ with massive media attention. The Aryan Nations is no doubt calling him to find out the secret to his PR genius, because everything they do gets totally ignored, probably because it reminds people that Jews are victims, too, but possibly because nobody cares about a dozen unemployed skinheads hanging out in a trailer.
But a trailer park American offending a Muslim? The media loves it because it makes Americans out to be ignorant racists, plus they could blame any backlash on the evil Right Wingers. So they trumped up this nothing story to further their pro-mosque "Americans are racist bigots" elitist message. As I mentioned up above, a story about a Baptist burning Bibles as the work of Satan, which isn't unusual, only made the news because it was particularly funny.
Nobody was worried that such actions might offend denominations that don't use the King James Bible, or that any readers of that story might particularly care one way or the other. And if the press doesn't care that their own readers, their customers, might be offended by a Bible burning, you know the press sure as hell doesn't care what Uzbek substistence farmers might think about such things. So they pushed the story to further their message about the mosque and how Americans are intolerant, and found out that the Muslim world really is wildly intolerant.
But instead of telling the press to knock it off, and that out of 300 million Americans you can probably come up with a Koran burning every weekend (heck, my friends posted photos of their Koran blast'em up), along with Bible burnings, tax protests, people wanting to reunite with Mother England, and the ever-present UFO watchers, we try to bring the full persuasive power of the US military and the federal government down on this one preacher.
Well, there's probably a hundred more back woods preachers lining up right behind Jones (sharing his average congregation size of about 30), so unless we're willing to have our government spend all its time dealing with part-time preachers/part-time used car salesmen on the international stage, perhaps the press should stop hurting US interests just to advance its parochial political agenda.
If the people opposed to the mosque are all bigots, and only 22% of New Yorkers support the mosque, it means that the vast majority of Democrat voters are bigots, as defined by media elites, most of whom don't even know someone who knows someone who ever lived in a trailer park or attended a Southern Baptist church.
Decaf is the work of the devil. It will not touch my lips.
What part of it not being a Mosque are you having trouble understanding?
Not yet, but the local fire department is intent on arresting them for not having a burning permit. Has a fire department ever demanded that a Baptist church get a permit for a good album burning? Probably not. Has a fire department ever demanded that anti-war protesters get a flag burning permit or go to jail? Probably not, but if they did the Supreme Court would slap them down.
The Constitution reflects the extreme irritation the colonists felt at the way the British Crown would use bullshit laws to keep them from speaking, organizing, or protesting. The Declaration of Indepence gives a huge list of examples, citing them as reasons for our seperation.
For an example you could identify with, what if a bunch of Republican city council members decided to prevent all the anti-Iraq war protests by simply not issuing any parade permits? I mean, it's not like that would infringe on anyone's First Amendment rights, would it? They could still speak all they want, somewhere else where nobody would see them. The Old South was full of examples of local governments making up reasons why this particular type of speech at this particular place and time wasn't permitted, due to a bunch of obscure health and safety regulations, lack of proper permits, etc.
If Imam Rauf, Al Qaeda apologist, has a right to build his Victory Mosque without government pressure on him, such as a bunch of local bureaucrats thinking up ingenious obstacles to throw in his path, then why would we applaud the application of government pressure and the erection of bullshit obstacles for this Florida redneck?
Oh good! If it's not a mosque he has no religious right to build it.
J
Jetfire
Guest
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbORaQxQmDs[/yt]
Dogma | Marilyn Manson
A song to go with this thread.
I voted; Why does the bunny have a cheeseburger on its head?
Dogma | Marilyn Manson
A song to go with this thread.
I voted; Why does the bunny have a cheeseburger on its head?
He doesn't need a religious right to build it.
Actually you are incorrect. There is a huge differences between Christian who follows Jesus teaching found in the New Testament and a Muslim who follows the teaching of Muhammad in the Quran. Also there is great misconception that Christans/Jews and Muslims believe in the same God. Muslims claim this and many acepts this as true but if you study the Quran. It describes Allah as the best deceiver there is, a liar who is not above using the same evil and wicked schemes of his opponents. For example, the Quran calls Allah a makr, in fact the best makr there is:
But they (the Jews) were deceptive, and Allah was deceptive, for Allah is the best of deceivers S. 3:54; cf. 8:30
This would be blasphemous statement in The Bible as God or Jehovah cannot or will not lie or deceive so in my books Allah is not the same god as in the Bible.
p.s regarding the topic in hand. I am against Koran burning as i dont see the point. It is stupid act.This would be blasphemous statement in The Bible as God or Jehovah cannot or will not lie or deceive so in my books Allah is not the same god as in the Bible.
"Please don't feed the gturner"
was a very wise warning some poster once made in one of these threads that had degenerated from a somewhat well-reasoned discussion into a heated and combative argument.
Repeatedly using misleading and inaccurate terms like "Victory Mosque" and calling people "twats" is a signal to me that someone prefers to start people throwing rocks and feces rather than to foster a sensible discussion.
I gotta go. Have a good discussion (I can only hope).
Because "we" are supposed to be better than "that".
Did I miss something? Did you just suggest that burning books is an example of the freedom of speech? 
Um... yeah... and while we're at it, let's burn some paintings in the name of the freedom of artistic expression.
And WTF are fake photos doing in that sentence together with all the other things that are related, to, you know, the truth?
Um... yeah... and while we're at it, let's burn some paintings in the name of the freedom of artistic expression.
Yeah, it's so awful when the public learns the truth because of that pesky "freedom of speech" thingy, instead of sticking to the good ole cover-up of crimes.
And WTF are fake photos doing in that sentence together with all the other things that are related, to, you know, the truth?
no it's the same fucking God - they are all described as Abrahamic religions and it's why the Torah is the basis for the Old Testament and Jesus is mentioned as prophet in the Koran. The 3 just differ on the the role of Jesus.
Jews rejected him as the Messiah
Christians belive he's the Messiah
Muslims believe he's a Prophet.
They just don't want to admit it because it shows how stupid they really are with their intolerances.
Just like Aphrodite and Venus are the same Fucking God.
Problem is that Christian church went through the age of enlightenment, through the Reformation and became a centralized institution with one head and a more or less generalized interpretation of the Bible. There are so many different christian subreligions, but mostly they all recognize the NT as an update to the OT (and that an 'eye for an eye' has been replaced by 'turn him the other cheek'). Then there are definitive translations like the King James, Segond or Luther bible.
Islam has almost none of that. There are so many interpretations of the Koran (because, just like the OT, it says everything. Kill, don't kill, stone, don't stone, love, hate, kill infidels, accept infidels, etc...), and there's no central institution at the top. Most Imams preach only in arabic, just like back then, when priest only preached in Latin. The translations are sometimes vastly different from each other. Which is why Bin Laden can say it's his mission to eliminate all infidels, while moderate Muslims say "the Koran is a book of peace", or why one can demand that women have to wear a full veil while others say Koran gives women freedom. And they are both right, because the Koran can be interpreted in both ways, just like the OT.
It's like if Star Trek was not under the sole control of Paramount but under the control of all the individual fanboys instead. It's a total mess of vastly different interpretations. Paired with the agressive notion that all other religions are wrong and villainous.
Mhmn... fucking Aphrodite...
Islam has almost none of that. There are so many interpretations of the Koran (because, just like the OT, it says everything. Kill, don't kill, stone, don't stone, love, hate, kill infidels, accept infidels, etc...), and there's no central institution at the top. Most Imams preach only in arabic, just like back then, when priest only preached in Latin. The translations are sometimes vastly different from each other. Which is why Bin Laden can say it's his mission to eliminate all infidels, while moderate Muslims say "the Koran is a book of peace", or why one can demand that women have to wear a full veil while others say Koran gives women freedom. And they are both right, because the Koran can be interpreted in both ways, just like the OT.
It's like if Star Trek was not under the sole control of Paramount but under the control of all the individual fanboys instead. It's a total mess of vastly different interpretations. Paired with the agressive notion that all other religions are wrong and villainous.
Mhmn... fucking Aphrodite...
Rii
Rear Admiral
It's curious how many millions of people Christians have managed to kill since becoming enlightened.
- Status
