# Quaran burning?



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

Gentlemen

What do you all think about this minister in Florida want to have a burn festival of the Quaran. Doing this Sept 11. In memory of what happened in NY.
Gen Petraeus appears concerned.
My feeling, when reading this gentlemans reasons. I am all for it. I did not think it would cause a outrage like it is going to do.
The thing going on NY makes me sick of all politics.
Anyway, your feelings?

Nice day


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Shouldn't any one opposing burn a Qur'an day be lectured about the right the church has to sponsor such an event?? 

https://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/09/07/afghanistan-general-petraeus-quaran-burning.html

The top U.S. general and NATO commander in Afghanistan on Tuesday condemned plans by an American church to burn copies of the Qur'an on Sept. 11.
Gen. David Petraeus said burning the Muslim holy book could endanger U.S. troops and Americans worldwide.
The small evangelical church - the Dove World Outreach Center based in Gainesville, Fla. - plans to burn copies of the Muslim holy book on Sept. 11, the ninth anniversary of the attacks on the U.S. The church has been denied a permit to hold a bonfire but has said it will go ahead with the burning.
"Images of the burning of a Qur'an would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan - and around the world - to inflame public opinion and incite violence," Petraeus said in an email to The Associated Press.
"I am very concerned by the potential repercussions of the possible (Qur'an) burning. Even the rumour that it might take place has sparked demonstrations such as the one that took place in Kabul yesterday. Were the actual burning to take place, the safety of our soldiers and civilians would be put in jeopardy and accomplishment of the mission would be made more difficult."
The U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan has also condemned the church's plans.

No one seems to have an issue with questioning the lack of wisdom to do so!!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

If I were a member of the Dove World Outreach Center evangelical church, I would be looking for a new church to affiliate with or at least organizing a movement to give that crack pot minister, who conceived of this travesty, the old heave-ho! As the old saw so aptly points out, "two wrongs don't make a right."


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

DukeGrad said:


> I am all for it. I did not think it would cause a outrage like it is going to do. The thing going on NY makes me sick of all politics.
> *Anyway, your feelings?*


My feeling is that you couldn't possibly be a Duke grad.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> If I were a member of the Dove World Outreach Center evangelical church, I would be looking for a new church to affiliate with or at least organizing a movement to give that crack pot minister, who conceived of this travesty, the old heave-ho! As the old saw so aptly points out, "two wrongs don't make a right."


To question the Constitutionality of BaQ day is to spit in the face of every red-blooded American having died for out freedom of expression.

HOW DARE YOU??


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

It'll make an interesting news story change from that of Pro-Life activists shooting abortionists.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

DukeGrad said:


> Gentlemen
> 
> What do you all think about this minister in Florida want to have a burn festival of the Quaran. Doing this Sept 11. In memory of what happened in NY.
> Gen Petraeus appears concerned.
> ...


I agree, Jimmy. Burn away. It's (still) a free country. God forbid we should offend Muslims, especially when the creeping political correctness about Islam somehow makes Christianity- and Judaism-bashing somehow acceptable.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> It'll make an interesting news story change from that of Pro-Life activists shooting abortionists.


Oh yes, the failed analogy round-robin!!

Sure, why not??


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

DukeGrad said:


> Gentlemen
> 
> ...your feelings?
> 
> Nice day


Let the minister reach out to losers and misfits.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

When it comes to the burning of central religious texts and scriptures like the Bible, Torah and Qur'an, I don't discriminate. 

I'd burn them all.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Chouan said:


> It'll make an interesting news story change from that of Pro-Life activists shooting abortionists.


So you must get news from America once a decade? (The last two murders happened in 1998 and 2009.) That seems about correct given your superficial knowledge of our con law.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

For me there are two things wrong with it.

1.) Buying or even shoplifting a copy would give the publisher income.
2.) I live in a studio and don't have a barbecue.

I'm going to explore the option of downloading and printing a copy and then shred and flush it this Saturday. This shredding and flushing will as all things happen with the will of Allah.:icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile:


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray (Jun 7, 2010)

In Islam quotes from scripture (from cuttings, leaflets, posters etc. or old books) that are no longer needed have to be disposed of in one of two ways - setting them out to sea or burning. Maybe a local Iman could take advantage of this event to get rid of any excess or damaged copies.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Burning the sacred texts of any religion is not a good thing, despite its likely legality in this country. Think of all the other things a person could do to make a point -- it only takes about two seconds. But _book burning_? Pitiful and pitiable and the sign of someone who is neither wise nor cares to understand the historic truth that the belligerent, petty scapegoating of one people will always lead to more violence, more misunderstanding and more death.

Fortunately for the minister in question, it's not against the law to be a complete fool.

"Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings." -- Heinrich Heine


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

Quay said:


> "Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings." -- Heinrich Heine


In the case of our enemy, that might not be a bad idea. We must have warehouses full of unused nukes. What the Hell are we saving them for-use them already.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Pentheos said:


> So you must get news from America once a decade? (The last two murders happened in 1998 and 2009.) That seems about correct given your superficial knowledge of our con law.


 Whatever con law means.


----------



## sjghr (Feb 13, 2010)

I would hazard a guess that it means constitutional law.


There's nothing like rising above the level of terrorists, is there... 

My question is how the pastor of an 'outreach centre' has managed to get that position without an understanding of the word outreach?

As it happens though, I shall be burning a few Catholic bibles on the 21st November in remembrance of the Birmingham bombings (which, incidentally, badly wounded my Uncle). That event was proof that Catholicism is an evil that needs to be ridded from this world.

I'm all sarcasmed out now...

On a serious note, and echoing Gen Patraeus' comments; if, as a result of this, anyone who I have trained or served with is injured or killed due to increased resistence in light of this naive and silly stunt, I shall be hunting down the pastor personally...

:icon_headagainstwal


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

beherethen said:


> What the Hell are we saving them for-use them already.


In fairness, you have form.....


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

I support that church's right to hold a peaceful demonstration for the purpose of making a political or religious statement-assuming, of course, that all applicable local laws, ordinances, and regulations are being respected and the action does not pose a threat to public safety.

Personally, I do not see the point. If they want to make a statement, if they want to make a point, well it's being lost on me. Burning a book doesn't tell me anything except that you don't know (or worse, don't care) that books can be recycled. If you have a point to make, something you'd like me to think about, prepare a nice pamphlet, leaflet, or handbill-one printed on paper made from recycled books would be nice-and mail it to me; _then_ you'll have given me something to think about.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

JJR512 said:


> I support that church's right to hold a peaceful demonstration for the purpose of making a political or religious statement-assuming, of course, that all applicable local laws, ordinances, and regulations are being respected and the action does not pose a threat to public safety.
> 
> ...


Just thinkin but, if the church is so ready to cast away that ever so handy "Separation of church and State", perhaps it is right that we begin sending them their tax bills! Just doesn't seem right that they should have it both ways. Yes, no? :icon_scratch:


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> Just thinkin but, if the church is so ready to cast away that ever so handy "Separation of church and State", perhaps it is right that we begin sending them their tax bills! Just doesn't seem right that they should have it both ways. Yes, no? :icon_scratch:


How did the separation of church and state come into this debate? What does it have to do with what's being discussed here, or what does what's being discussed here have to do with that concept? I don't see that this has anything to do with that concept at all.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Old story but relevant.

Short version: Muslim gunmen sack a church in Gaza and burn bibles.

Older story.

Short version: Muslim students urinate on, spit on, and burn bibles.

Another.

Short version: Muslims in Pakistan burn bibles to convince Christians to convert to Islam.

Oh well. Better to burn books than bodies.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

I support his legal right to do so, but find it completely repugnant. I also do not personally think the mosque or whatever they are calling it is a very good idea but support their right to do so as well.

I think burning a qur'an is a far more aggressive, antagonizing, and threatening move than attempting to build a Islamic center near the WTC but maybe that's just me. 

Could care less what a bunch of radical Muslims do in countries that are unfortunate not to have the same rights we do. Since when have we become determined to match the lowest denominator? Beyond that, some radical Muslims over there don't speak for the multitudes of peaceful Muslims here in the US anymore than this idiot represents the views of the vast majority of Christians.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

sjghr said:


> On a serious note, and echoing Gen Patraeus' comments; if, as a result of this, anyone who I have trained or served with is injured or killed due to increased resistence in light of this naive and silly stunt, I shall be hunting down the pastor personally...


How about you hunt down the guys who hurt your colleagues? They're the real evil ones, not some fool pastor seeking attention.


----------



## Wildblue (Oct 11, 2009)

I'll summarize my posts over in the WTC Islamic center/mosque thread:

This Florida church has just as much 1st Amendment legal right to burn the Quran, as the Muslim planners have to build their megacenter/mosque a block and a half away from the WTC. They are both legal, and I vehemently support their constitutional rights to do their plans. In NEITHER case does that legality make the planned activity RIGHT. Both activities show a complete lack of respect and snide contempt for other cultures. This is becoming a dangerous progression.

Through their plans and refusal to listen to how their actions are affecting others, the Muslim planners are showing ugly contempt for the rest of American culture. The Florida church sees this, and says, "screw them! They trample on us, we'll trample on them and burn the Quran." To which, the Muslim world is already reacting, before the center/mosque is even built, or the Qurans burned, and is angrily rising up against Westerners. I myself, currently stationed in Iraq, am seeing the effects of this, with increased Muslim anger against Westerners. This is about to explode into some nasty violence, and I don't want any part of it.

Holy crap, people! We need to have respect on BOTH sides. And this is not just a "America needs to respect Islam" one-way street. Muslims need to respect other cultures, too--American, British, French, Chinese, Argentinian, you name it!


----------



## Wildblue (Oct 11, 2009)

Oh, dear--now Mayor Bloomberg has come out supporting the Florida church's rights to burn the Quran. (huh... what authority does the NYC Mayor have to talk about legal rights in Florida?) Since he did the same thing with the WTC center/mosque, at least he's consistent, there. Why is it though, that in THIS case, he's actually worried about the Muslims, the impact it's going to have on them, and the consequences it'll have, but for the mosque in his own city, he has no regard for the impact it has on his own constituents? He says their opposition is only "politically motivated", discounts it outright. Yet when the tables are turned, he gives great credit to the opinions of the Muslims.

Great leader.

https://news.oneindia.in/2010/09/08/burn-quran-day-ny-mayor-defends-pastors-right.html

Maybe, just maybe, instead of President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg focusing so much on what things are LEGAL, they should consider what the RIGHT thing is to do?


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

As elected officials sworn to uphold the Constitution, the RIGHT thing to do is the LEGAL thing to do.


----------



## Enron (Feb 16, 2010)

A little info on this supposed "church"...they participated in protesting WITH the Westboro Baptist Church (you know, the guys that go to funerals of American servicemen holding signs that say GOD HATES **** and THANK GOD FOR DEAD SOLDIERS) and marched on a Gainesville Methodist Church that they decided was "liberal" and also marched on the University of Florida's Hilel center. Apparently, they don't like Jews either. How anyone can defend these idiots beyond "they have a legal right to do so" is beyond me. 

Just look at this. They are proud of the association. Completely disgusting. They even call other Christians who do NOT share their views "weak" and "sick". Is this the side you really want to be on?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Technically they _don't_ have the legal right to do so as they didn't obtain a bloody permit to have a bonfire! On a broader scale though, yes, they have freedom of speech. Doesn't mean I have to like it. I wouldn't like it if it were a local mosque burning bibles either. In any case, I question the sanity of these people. Just as relations have improved with Afghanistan over the last few years, this has sent shockwaves to the Muslim world. The best we can do now is to say, "This does not represent all of the U.S." and hope they believe us.

Most people in Gainesville oppose it. Thank God there's some sense here. On the flip side, I don't condone what some radicals on this side have proposed. Supposedly even some firefighters and police officers are saying they won't do anything if the church catches fire. I don't care how revolting the Qu'ran burning is, if they won't do the job they have sworn to do (protect and serve the public), then _they don't deserve to wear that uniform_. They cannot and should not bring their personal politics into their jobs in that way.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Jovan said:


> Technically they _don't_ have the legal right to do so as they didn't obtain a bloody permit to have a bonfire! On a broader scale though, yes, they have freedom of speech. Doesn't mean I have to like it.


Which is exactly why I said earlier, "...assuming, of course, that all applicable local laws, ordinances, and regulations are being respected and the action does not pose a threat to public safety." We should all know from childhood that "freedom of speech" does not literally mean you can say anything you want at any time you want, or put on a demonstration or stage a protest any time and any place. Public safety must always be considered.

And the wonderful thing about freedom of speech is that while they have the right (in theory, at least, if not necessarily in practice in this case due to a lack of required permit) to say (by demonstration) what they want, the more intelligent and considerate of us also have the right to say we don't like it, just as Jovan just did.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

They're tactless loons, of course, but it is pettifogging to say that their first amendment rights must be checked because they don't have a permit from the local fire department. Can you imagine what the founding fathers would think of ordinance permits to exercise freedoms they fought, bled, and died for?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

So it's okay if they start a fire that potentially endangers the public?


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Jovan said:


> So it's okay if they start a fire that potentially endangers the public?


I doubt a bonfire in the church's backyard is going to burn down Gainesville (from what I hear about the place, might not be a bad thing though---can you confirm?).


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

There is a difference between denying a permit to limit someone's rights under the First Amendment, and denying a permit to limit the risk to public safety. One is acceptable, the other is not. I do not know if the church even applied for a permit, and if they did, who denied it and on what grounds. If they did apply for a permit, then based on what Jovan said, it is clearly within the realm of possibility that it may have been denied because the authority did not like what the church was planning on doing. As Pentheos puts forth, I doubt the Founding Fathers would approve of the situation if that is indeed the case.

As with any demonstration or protest, public safety must be considered above all else. But public safety cannot be used as an excuse for the permit-issuing authority to allow what he likes and prevent what he doesn't.

I don't know what things are like in the area where this church is, but I can tell you for a fact that if it was a church on Maryland's Eastern Shore that had applied for a similar permit, it would have been denied. According to what I heard on the news tonight, it's very dry on that side of the Chesapeake, and the brush is just waiting for a spark to set it off. That's a valid public safety concern, and I know Florida has had problems with wild fires in the last few years, so although I don't know the exact conditions in that exact area at this exact time, I'm really not surprised that they'd have trouble getting a permit for a fire.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Pentheos said:


> I doubt a bonfire in the church's backyard is going to burn down Gainesville (from what I hear about the place, might not be a bad thing though---can you confirm?).


All it takes is one ember carried up by the heat then off on a wind current to hit a dry patch of brush, or land on someone's roof, for it to become a problem. Do you want to see a list of people who said, "I doubt this will be a problem," or the related, "What's the worst that can happen?" Because such a list has already been created: https://www.darwinawards.com/


----------



## Wildblue (Oct 11, 2009)

Okay, so instead of having a bonfire, they just sit around their fireplace and throw Qurans in there. Nothing illegal about that.



jean-paul sartorial said:


> As elected officials sworn to uphold the Constitution, the RIGHT thing to do is the LEGAL thing to do.


WHAT? Since when does legality define morality? Mayor Bloomberg would be legal to urinate on the American flag. It's legal to do. I haven't seen him on TV doing that though, since by your definition, that's the RIGHT thing to do.

NO. This is not the right decision for this church to burn the Quran, any more than it is for the Muslim leaders to keep charging ahead and build the center/mosque as planned by the WTC, even if either one is legal.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

God, Yahweh, Allah, forgive them for they know not what they do.


----------



## ajo (Oct 22, 2007)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> God, Yahweh, Allah, forgive them for they know not what they do.


You forgot Ganesha, but I imagine he would pardon their ignorance as well.


----------



## Wildblue (Oct 11, 2009)

Dude. Do you ever stop? Or do you have any independant thoughts or discussion inputs that are NOT just cut and paste straight from your Daily Mash?


----------



## Wildblue (Oct 11, 2009)

I do want to make one thing clear--between the Muslim planner insistence to press ahead with the center/mosque as planned, and the planned burning of the Qurans, NEITHER ONE JUSTIFIES CARRYING OUT THE OTHER, NOR ANY FORCEFUL RETALIATION AGAINST ANY PARTY.

I'm not getting a good feeling at all about how this is proceeding. If at least one party doesn't change course, (I personally hope that both will, as the right thing) I sadly think we will not make it through this weekend without not only physical violence, but somewhere in the world, people will be killed over this. This is not right. We're headed down the wrong path. None of this is worth violence, but I fear that is exactly what is about to erupt. I pray to God for peace.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Wildblue said:


> Dude. Do you ever stop? Or do you have any independant thoughts or discussion inputs that are NOT just cut and paste straight from your Daily Mash?


Of course I do. Look at my other posts. However, when you are all getting into such a stress about stuff like this it is a bit of light relief, to see the funny side of your arguments.
If you don't find it amusing, and it isn't to everybody's taste, don't read it. I find that it takes the piss out of every major news story, and certainly helps me relax and de-stress.
It is also useful in that it exagerates prejudices to such an extent thatit makes one think more deeply about one's own prejudices.


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*God, Yahweh, Allah*



Earl of Ormonde said:


> *forgive them for they know not what they do*.


I don't think GOD would care if they burn the Quran and the Bible. These are just text books... :icon_study:


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> God, Yahweh, Allah, forgive them for they know not what they do.





ajo said:


> You forgot Ganesha, but I imagine he would pardon their ignorance as well.


I suspect that Earl of Ormonde was referring to the different names/identities given to what is really the same supreme deity. Ganesha is a completely different deity, and if he's there at all, he may or may not be bemused by this entire situation, but he's irrelevant to the point I suspect EoE was making.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

sjghr said:


> On a serious note, and echoing Gen Patraeus' comments; if, as a result of this, anyone who I have trained or served with is injured or killed due to increased resistence in light of this naive and silly stunt, I shall be hunting down the pastor personally...
> 
> :icon_headagainstwal


I always hope and pray for the success of our mission, the safety of our own troops and those of our allies.

But what was the excuse for our enemies yesterday, and last week, and the month before last.

When Bugs Bunny made offensive and racist remarks about the Japs in '44, did that embolden them??

How does a pethetic nutjob crazy eyed John Brown Wannabee with 50 or so parishoners out of Bumfuck FL. garner so much attention from a National and International media??

Just think about it.


----------



## sjghr (Feb 13, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> How does a pethetic nutjob crazy eyed John Brown Wannabee with 50 or so parishoners out of Bumfuck FL. garner so much attention from a National and International media??


That's what the media do - with a little more thought, my concerns should really have be about the media. Unfortunately, the media blowing things out of proportion, or publishing things simply to fan the flames and increase circulation, isn't anything new, so I suppose it just passed me by as part of the background.


----------



## Wildblue (Oct 11, 2009)

Crap... this is looking worse and worse. Terry Jones is refusing to back down, insisting to go ahead with the Quan burning the same way that Imam Faisal is insisting he is going to build the center/mosque as planned, right by the WTC.

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39048161/ns/us_news-security

This part to me is particularly disturbing, the reaction we're already seeing from the Muslim world before the fact:



> "It is the duty of Muslims to react," said Mohammad Mukhtar, a cleric and candidate for the Afghan parliament in the Sept. 18 election. "When their holy book Quran gets burned in public, then there is nothing left. If this happens, I think the first and most important reaction will be that wherever Americans are seen, they will be killed. No matter where they will be in the world they will be killed."


Mark my words, if this happens, people are going to take it to the next level and resort not just to violence, but to murder, and people are going to end up dead this weekend. I pray to God it's not any of my troops here in Iraq.


----------



## ajo (Oct 22, 2007)

JJR512 said:


> I suspect that Earl of Ormonde was referring to the different names/identities given to what is really the same supreme deity. Ganesha is a completely different deity, and if he's there at all, he may or may not be bemused by this entire situation, but he's irrelevant to the point I suspect EoE was making.


Have you not heard of the Bahia'i faith? Their take on monotheism is that all Gods are the manifestations of the One God. As for why I quoted Ganesha he is regarded as the remover of obstacles and the lord of intellect and wisdom.

The point I trying to make in light hearted fashion is that all tolerant individuals who are willing to respect another individuals religious beliefs would not engage in such a provocative disrespectful act.

I have no time for Islamic fundamentalists, for that matter fundamentalists of any ilk, but such provocative actions would only serve to provoke the militants to action to avenge their perceived sacrilegious actions of a mad minority.

If anything the 20th Century taught us some brutal lessons about the nature of religious intolerance and its consequences. But sadly these appear to be lost in the current discussion.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Pentheos said:


> I doubt a bonfire in the church's backyard is going to burn down Gainesville (from what I hear about the place, might not be a bad thing though---can you confirm?).


 You know, I'd like to agree with you here but I don't wish harm on anyone. If it does happen I hope everyone is outside and doesn't get hurt. They _are_ as bad as Westboro in their beliefs but IIRC haven't caused any local trouble up until this point. Arguably, since this has caused waves around the world, they are worse than Westboro. Evidently the FBI is getting involved and will have armed security around the two mile radius. To be honest, I'm getting a little frightened hearing that.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

There are good ways to counter such tasteless publicity seeking as book burning. Create and build something, do someone a kindness or buy a book for a kid.
Destruction of books, morals and integrity are easy but if you build a better world it may be harder but is at least worthwhile.

What this preacher does is irrelevant but it can remind us to be better than him.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

Frankly, I don't think pulling a publicity stunt to a) call attention to himself and b) to offend and insult all Muslims is a very Christian thing to do. On the other hand, I question whether the argument that it shouldn't be done because the Muslims may harm Americans--military or otherwise is not, should not be the only cause for concern. Are we going to cower from saying or doing anything that may offend the Muslim masses for fear they may hate us more and try to harm us? They already hate us and try to kill us and I doubt anything will change the radical Islamists since they are taught to hate from a young age. Will we hesitate to publish a cartoon because we are afraid they will try to kill us like the situation in Denmark?
I don't approve of this man's crude and ignorant intent--no way! It is not something he _should _do...but when we start abridging our right of freedom of expression out of fear for what someone else will do...I think it is a slippery slope. A point no one else seems to be making--so I don't know. I do think it is a question worth at least considering. Anyone who threatens to harm you because of a stand you take...even if it is an imflammatory stand...is a bully. We shouldn't cave in to bullies.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

Wildblue said:


> WHAT? Since when does legality define morality? Mayor Bloomberg would be legal to urinate on the American flag. It's legal to do. I haven't seen him on TV doing that though, since by your definition, that's the RIGHT thing to do.


I think we have a misunderstanding. I'm not saying just because something is legal to do you should do it. I am saying you should not do something illegal simply because you disagree with the rule.

Not that Bloomberg has any jurisdiction in Florida anyway, but as elected official acting in his official job duties, his personal views take a backseat to the Constitution. I have not ceded my freedom of speech to Bloomberg based on what he sees as moral. I never will.

I was simply trying to make the same point Jovan did. If you are a firefighter you have to carry out your duties to protect people, even if they are idiots who caused their own problems with a repugnant display of Qu'ran building. I don't care how you personally feel about it. Your legal duty is to stop the fire and try to save their lives. In the same way, I believe Bloomberg's duty is to obey the Constitution and not abridge freedom of speech. That takes precedence to me over what his personal feelings are about the message.


----------



## KennethB (Jul 29, 2009)

Jesus, save me from your followers.


----------



## Wildblue (Oct 11, 2009)

Saltydog said:


> Frankly, I don't think pulling a publicity stunt to a) call attention to himself and b) to offend and insult all Muslims is a very Christian thing to do. On the other hand, I question whether the argument that it shouldn't be done because the Muslims may harm Americans--military or otherwise is not, should not be the only cause for concern. Are we going to cower from saying or doing anything that may offend the Muslim masses for fear they may hate us more and try to harm us? They already hate us and try to kill us and I doubt anything will change the radical Islamists since they are taught to hate from a young age. Will we hesitate to publish a cartoon because we are afraid they will try to kill us like the situation in Denmark?
> I don't approve of this man's crude and ignorant intent--no way! It is not something he _should _do...but when we start abridging our right of freedom of expression out of fear for what someone else will do...I think it is a slippery slope. A point no one else seems to be making--so I don't know. I do think it is a question worth at least considering. Anyone who threatens to harm you because of a stand you take...even if it is an imflammatory stand...is a bully. We shouldn't cave in to bullies.


 Good point Saltydog. Personally, my opposition to the Quran book burning is not because of the potential consequences of what others may do around the world, but rather that the act itself is contemptful of others.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

KennethB said:


> Jesus, save me from your followers.


 Sir, PLEASE don't lump them all in with those bigoted attention seekers, even if you are against religion. All the good Christians I know, and most Gainesvillians, believe what they're doing is a disgrace to say the least.


----------



## Wildblue (Oct 11, 2009)

Anybody else noticing that when something like this is even considered, Americans and Christians around the world immediately come out in strong public condemnation--Hillary Clinton, Glenn Beck, the Pope, politicians, religious leaders, public, etc. But when extremists murder people through bombings, beheadings, etc in the name of Islam, what reaction do you hear from Muslims?


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

Gentlemen

I saw the comment about against all religions. I am not. Just Muslims.
The set off IED and what have you in Iraq, Afganistan.
Those Muslims, make me sick. The ones that made 9/11 a day in history.
I love all others, but want to make that clear.
If I am a bigot, then I am proud to be a bigot.
I do not lump these fanatics into a religion. They are a population of people, who hates us.
And that drives me further.
I did not give a s h it . Untill 9/11.
That was the cherry on the cake.

Nice day


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Gentlemen: I stated my thoughts on the "Quaran burning" earlier in the thread and will not bore you by repeating them here. However, I must add, while I can understand the outrage expressed by so many, I am mildly surprised by the shock. This is a conflict, the ebb and flow of which, we have endured for centuries. Some would argue, it is simply the greatest of dramas playing out. We wring our hands over the thought of Iran getting "the Bomb!" The reality is, the Arab world already has "the Bomb" and there is a whole lot of unaccounted for fissionable material floating around, with which to make others....the technology isn't much of a secret any more!

If you want to do something useful, for those of us so inclined, pull out your Bibles and read, or re read the Book of Revealations...and then pray; pray like you never prayed before and may God bless us all!

LOL. I find myself playing that old Country Joe and The Fish song over and over in my head:

...and it's one, two three, what are we fighting for?
Don't ask me cause I don't give a damn;
Next stop is Vietnam.
...and it's five, six, seven; open up the 'Pearly Gates';
It ain't no time to wonder why...whoopie we're all going to die!

Taking Glenn Beck's lead, I'm going to go pray now!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Wildblue said:


> Anybody else noticing that when something like this is even considered, Americans and Christians around the world immediately come out in strong public condemnation--Hillary Clinton, Glenn Beck, the Pope, politicians, religious leaders, public, etc. But when extremists murder people through bombings, beheadings, etc in the name of Islam, what reaction do you hear from Muslims?


Even the Great Obama is willing to comment on the wisdom of such an act!!

Yes, if I had to chose their crazies over our crazies, I'd still take our crazies!!

The crazy jerkoff Jones was dug out from under a rock by a media bent on showing everyone that we are "just as bad" as everyone else. Brought to you by the same people that report AZ to the U.N..

Still, there may be a target rich environment this weekend. 

Stay safe!!


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

""

Surely they know that the actions of twenty-odd lunatics don't represent Christianity as a whole? Nearly all Christians condemn the act. They must not understand that Christianity is a religion of peace.

Since they seem not to know how peaceful Christianity is, I propose that we build a mega-Christian community center in a very visible location, maybe near one of their own sites of hallowed ground, like Mecca, to promote dialogue and inter-faith connectivity. Yes, it'll have a church inside, but it'll be a small church. Surely they can't object?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Pentheos said:


> Yes, it'll have a church inside, but it'll be a small church. Surely they can't object?


Provided the Church is properly located and isn't "too churchy" it may be OK!!

Presiding over the cradle of Islam and home to its holiest sites, the Saudi monarchy has long banned the open worship of other faiths, even as the number of Catholics resident in Saudi Arabia has risen to 800,000 thanks to an influx of immigrant workers from places like the Philippines and India. Mosques are the only houses of prayer in a country where the strict Wahhabi version of Sunni Islam dominates. But Archbishop Paul-Mounged El-Hachem, the papal envoy to the smaller countries on the Arabian peninsula, such as Kuwait and Qatar, has confirmed that talks are under way to establish formal diplomatic relations between the Vatican and Saudi Arabia, and to eventually allow for Catholic churches to be built there. Pope Benedict XVI is believed to have personally appealed to King Abdullah on the topic during the Saudi monarch's first ever visit to the Vatican last November.


----------



## dwebber18 (Jun 5, 2008)

I'll admit I didn't take the time to read through all the posts, but here is my take as a conservative Christian gentleman. I don't believe that burning another religious groups holy book is right. As a Christian I don't think Islam is the correct path to Heaven, but I would much rather try to pull Muslims from the fire than throw their book in. I know many of you may not agree with my religious position, but that's how I feel. However, I thank God that this is American and that church has the right to express themselves freely no matter how I view their actions personally. I also think the mosque should be allowed to be build near ground zero, should they? Probably not, but I believe in religious freedom, even if its a religion I don't believe in. Unfortunately this pastors misguided actions give all of us conservative Christians a bad image. Showing hate is not a way to bring people to God for any religion, so I don't see how this will help save those who are lost, it will only further hate among those who agree with the pastor.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> ...to eventually allow for Catholic churches to be built there. Pope Benedict XVI is believed to have personally appealed to King Abdullah on the topic during the Saudi monarch's first ever visit to the Vatican last November.


Good news. I'll be the first to welcome Saudi Arabia into the tenth century!


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

A good thing about the book burning is that it reminds us of what happened on 9/11. We as a people tend to forgive and forget outrages committed against us too quickly and ironically tend to beat ourselves up over our sometimes questionable actions forever.
Example: What happened November 4th, 1979?
Iran occupied our embassy in Tehran and held 66 of our people hostage for 444 days. This should have called for genocide of the entire country, but no and at this point it's just a dim memory.
The reverend has reminded us and that's a good thing. For those of you in or near Gainesville, Florida, if you've already seen America's oldest wooden school house, you may as well go. It's sure to be the most interesting event of the season.:icon_smile:


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Everyone has the freedom to do whatever makes them feel good with themselves but never freedom from consequence.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Chouan said:


> It'll make an interesting news story change from that of Pro-Life activists shooting abortionists.


Yes. This plague must stop. One need only read any mainstream newspaper to know that every year tens of thousands of abortionists are murdered by pro-life activists (who also of course burn books). According to what everyone knows is true every three seconds some innocent humanitarian abortionist is murdered in America by a pro-life activist. Indeed, pro-life activists are on the verge of eliminating abortionists. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute the number of abortions in the US is almost down to a paltry 1,000,000 per year. Like all terrible major social problems, this scandal can be cured only by raising awareness. Thank goodness for the mainstream media.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Jovan said:


> Sir, PLEASE don't lump them all in with those bigoted attention seekers, even if you are against religion. All the good Christians I know, and most Gainesvillians, believe what they're doing is a disgrace to say the least.


There is a reason this idiot "pastor" has a mega-church numbering 50 people.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Pentheos said:


> ""
> 
> Surely they know that the actions of twenty-odd lunatics don't represent Christianity as a whole? Nearly all Christians condemn the act. They must not understand that Christianity is a religion of peace.
> 
> Since they seem not to know how peaceful Christianity is, I propose that we build a mega-Christian community center in a very visible location, maybe near one of their own sites of hallowed ground, like Mecca, to promote dialogue and inter-faith connectivity. Yes, it'll have a church inside, but it'll be a small church. Surely they can't object?


To those folks who think that this is a lone isolated incident and that Christians don't generally burn books I offer: https://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/05/20/us.military.bibles.burned/index.html


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> To those folks who think that this is a lone isolated incident and that Christians don't generally burn books I offer: https://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/05/20/us.military.bibles.burned/index.html


Link... "This was irresponsible and dangerous journalism sensationalizing year-old footage of a religious service for U.S. soldiers on a U.S. base and inferring that troops are evangelizing to Afghans," Col. Gregory Julian said.

Gee, you don't say...


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

Wildblue said:


> Anybody else noticing that when something like this is even considered, Americans and Christians around the world immediately come out in strong public condemnation--Hillary Clinton, Glenn Beck, the Pope, politicians, religious leaders, public, etc. But when extremists murder people through bombings, beheadings, etc in the name of Islam, what reaction do you hear from Muslims?


Because Clinton, Beck, et al. enjoy freedom of speech, which sadly many Muslims in the mideast do not.

If you are talking about Muslims groups from the US condemning terrorist acts, they do. You don't notice it because you don't care what they think. It just goes in one ear and out the other.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

jean-paul sartorial said:


> Because Clinton, Beck, et al. enjoy freedom of speech, which sadly many Muslims in the mideast do not.
> 
> If you are talking about Muslims groups from the US condemning terrorist acts, they do. You don't notice it because you don't care what they think. It just goes in one ear and out the other.


Yes, but all too often such condemnations reek of Imam Rauf-ish ambivalence: one minute of obligatory condemnation, followed by an hour of explanation and rationalization, punctuated by ten seconds of "but that still does not excuse it of course."


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> Yes, but all too often such condemnations reek of Imam Rauf-ish ambivalence: one minute of obligatory condemnation, followed by an hour of explanation and rationalization, punctuated by ten seconds of "but that still does not excuse it of course."


I never get enough of being lectured to myself, I soak it all in!!


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"Because Clinton, Beck, et al. enjoy freedom of speech..."

This is great but it seems that while these people practice the right to speech they use it as a substitute for action. If Beck were to show up in person with a fire extenguisher he would not be quite as low on my list of people to ignore.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Country Irish said:


> "Because Clinton, Beck, et al. enjoy freedom of speech..."
> 
> This is great but it seems that while these people practice the right to speech they use it as a substitute for action. If Beck were to show up in person with a fire extenguisher he would not be quite as low on my list of people to ignore.


I'm no Beck lover but that is just plain silly. These idiots have a right to burn whatever books they own and Beck has no right whatsoever to physically interfere. Like you and I, all he can do is condemn without equivocation, which apparently he has done.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

*Burning Cancelled*

The burning is off.


----------



## ajo (Oct 22, 2007)

^ Yes heard this on the 6.30am news. This may be the case, but now the idiot is claiming credit for the move of the proposed mosque in NY. The question is now has the media created another Frankenstein?


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

JJR512 said:


> The burning is off.


Check the update, it's back on.

We've supposed the pastor is an attention-seeking moron, but it was a brilliant move on his part to turn this into a quid pro quo with the NYC imam. I wonder if he had this planned all along.


----------



## Enron (Feb 16, 2010)

beherethen said:


> This should have called for genocide of the entire country, but no and at this point it's just a dim memory.


Either you are a worthless human being, or you are a master troll.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Someone needs to tell the good pastor that the 70s called and it wants its mutton chops back. The obvious inferior quality of his fused suit and non-wrinkle poly/cotton blend shirt from Gentlemen's Warehouse doesn't help his cause much.

I would say that this was planned all along, but I think it would be giving him too much credit. Frankly I could have cared less if he had burned copies of the Quaran (it's his right), but I wonder where the outcry will be when some nutjob decides to torch a stack of Bibles or Torahs.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

TMMKC said:


> Someone needs to tell the good pastor that the 70s called and it wants its mutton chops back. The obvious inferior quality of his fused suit and non-wrinkle poly/cotton blend shirt from Gentlemen's Warehouse doesn't help his cause much.
> 
> I would say that this was planned all along, but I think it would be giving him too much credit. Frankly I could have cared less if he had burned copies of the Quaran (it's his right), but I wonder where the outcry will be when some nutjob decides to torch a stack of Bibles or Torahs.


Well, as I noted earlier, there was quite the Bible burning party a year or two ago in Iraq. The US military did it. Whether one views the rationale as mitigating or aggravating depends on how open and accepting one is to other cultures. Of course.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

Mike Petrik said:


> Yes, but all too often such condemnations reek of Imam Rauf-ish ambivalence: one minute of obligatory condemnation, followed by an hour of explanation and rationalization, punctuated by ten seconds of "but that still does not excuse it of course."


I don't think it is much different than the many Americans saying "Yeah, this pastor is an idiot but at the same time he was driven to it by the mosque/9-11/terrorism/war, etc."

I have a natural distrust of anyone or group that claims to speak for a larger group, and also of those who try to group people together. I sort of agree that the condmenations/apologies to victims seem like a sham, but that's because the whole situation is a bit of sham.

This pastor does not speak for me, so I feel no obligation to apologize for this guy being a total douche. Glen Beck and Bill Clinton certainly don't speak for me either, so their condemnation doesn't let white men, Americans, people over 40, Christians, Mormons, or whatever off the hook they never should have been on in the first place.

I am of Chinese descent, but born and raised in the US. I don't feel any affiliation with the Communist Chinese government, and I don't feel like I need to apologize for lead filled-toys or the supression of Tibet.

I just feel like the whole apology/condemnation scorecard is a red herring.

You can't apologize for killing 1000 civilians. It wasn't like an accident or something. If "they" did it, no pretty PR statement of apology is going to cut it. 
How is a statement of "I'm sorry" not going to be anything but a sham? OTOH, if a Muslim or Muslim group *doesn't* believe those things, what do they have to apologize for? They shouldn't have to reaffirm that they aren't terrorists. Their everyday lives of not killing civilians should be more than enough.

So asking Muslims to apologize for or condemn the actions of terrorist Muslims is merely forcing them to jump through a hoop that really isn't going to change anyone's mind. If you don't like them, you don't like them.

I have some Muslim friends. It never occurred to me to pick up the phone on 9/12 and demand an apology or for them to explicitly to set themselves apart from the WTC terrorists. They have as much in common with the terrorists as I do. So either we both need to condemn those acts and explicitly put ourselves on the side of the "good guys" or neither of us do.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

Jean-Paul, thanks for the thoughtful post. I agree at one level with everything you say, but I fear that if we always live with the sort of individualism you describe, we miss out on much of what makes us--as humans--social beings. How can we both respect the individuality of the individual and at the same time, form a genuine community? A rhetorical question prompted by your comments.


----------



## Wildblue (Oct 11, 2009)

jean-paul sartorial said:


> Because Clinton, Beck, et al. enjoy freedom of speech, which sadly many Muslims in the mideast do not.
> 
> If you are talking about Muslims groups from the US condemning terrorist acts, they do. You don't notice it because you don't care what they think. It just goes in one ear and out the other.


Huh? Your claim is that the reason that Muslims do not publicly, aggressively condemn radicals that commit terror acts in the name of Islam, is because they don't have freedom of speech?

And that every time there's a radical act in the name of Islam, here in America the Muslim community rises up just as vehemently as we're seeing right now from Americans and Christians against the Quran burning, but none of us notice because we don't care when they think?

You really have convinced yourself of that? Perhaps you have some solid evidence to support the justification you give. All the Muslims around the world that tried to speak out but were silenced? And all the Muslim community and their leaders that publicly speak out over and over just as publicly as we're seeing leaders do right now to condemn the Quran burning?


----------



## Wildblue (Oct 11, 2009)

Hearing the latest news from Florida, I'm confused as to whether the Quran burning has been canceled or not. Confusing stories out there.

I will say, I find it repugnant that this Florida church is making out their decision to be contingent upon the Manhatten mosque being moved. They should cancel the Quran book burning because canceling is the RIGHT thing to do, not make it into any deal wrangling or extortion. They should cancel out of respect for Muslim culture--claiming that they are forcing the NYC mosque to move is the exact opposite of respect.

Similarly, the Manhatten mosque should move because it is the RIGHT thing to do, not as part of a deal to ward off any sort of actions against Islam.

I pray both parties pull back from the paths they are stubbornly committed to, and listen to others. Sadly, regardless of what happens now, I wonder if it's too late. The Muslim community is already riled up about what the Florida church is planning. I wonder if they will back down if the Quran burning is canceled, or whether they'll still lash out. NOBODY here is justified in what they do based on what other parties are doing.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

jean-paul sartorial said:


> I don't think it is much different than the many Americans saying "Yeah, this pastor is an idiot but at the same time he was driven to it by the mosque/9-11/terrorism/war, etc."
> 
> I have a natural distrust of anyone or group that claims to speak for a larger group, and also of those who try to group people together. I sort of agree that the condmenations/apologies to victims seem like a sham, but that's because the whole situation is a bit of sham.
> 
> ...


As to your first sentence, leaving aside the rather dubious moral equivalence of burning books versus burning humans, I don't see many American Christians engaged in the type of equivocation you describe, though certainly there are some. And there is a difference between an apology and an unequivocal condemnation. If some idiot tries to justify some heinous act because he is a Catholic, as a Catholic I would immediately condemn the act without reservation or equivocation; I do not think it appropriate to apologize. Nor do I think an apology would be expected.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> I'm no Beck lover but that is just plain silly. These idiots have a right to burn whatever books they own and Beck has no right whatsoever to physically interfere. Like you and I, all he can do is condemn without equivocation, which apparently he has done.


Of course it is silly. This entire story AND the attention it is recieving is all silly. I am just trying to get into the spirit of the whole farce.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

Mike Petrik said:


> Nor do I think an apology would be expected.


But that is sort of what people are really expecting from Muslim groups. Perhaps not you, but many Americans. I would condemn any group or person that does something heinous, just because it is wrong. The Asian guy who murdered a bunch of people in Virginia was wrong. Obviously. So were the Columbine killers. And the guy who shot up that beer distributor ship. I don't feel a greater need to go out and condemn that guy vs the guy who shot up a bunch people at a beer distributorship simply because the first guy was Asian.

But in the latter case, no one is expecting me to say anything. It's just accepted that I-- as a sane, moral human being-- would never condone such an action. Nor would it make any sort of headline because I'm not famous and it would just be like "Why is this news? Of course he doesn't like mass murderers, who would?" And yet in the former case, there were people who expected me to have some sort of comment. And if I were a celebrity, the press would be happy to pick up my statements as somehow representing the Asian-American community. Why? My closest affiliation with that guy he grew up just a few miles away from where I did, and I've been to the VA Tech campus many times. Not that we are both Asian Americans.

wildblue:

I would not say I am convinced at all.

I do think freedom of speech plays a huge role, and potentially leads us to underestimate the number of peaceful Muslims in the mideast. Unlike Glenn Beck, they don't have an easy outlet to air their views. Glenn Beck can pick up a mic and say whatever he wants and get it heard by millions. In fact, he makes a lot of money by doing so. We know women aren't treated well there, so that eliminates half the potential voices right there. And it's a lot to ask of a man to risk his life and family going public with a condemnation of radical Islam. Would Beck be so bold if he knew he could easily be killed for stating his many controversial views on air? I doubt it. That is not a knock on Beck (though I agree with very little he says), it's just reality.

As for the US, I attempted to address that in my last post. Go look at the comments in any news article or even on this board. There are plenty of Americans who not only were FOR the burning, but advocate going further and destroying all Muslims. It just so happens that Clinton and Beck get a lot of press because of who they are. Is there an equivalent Muslim ex-President or political commentator with the same influence? And again, I think we are sort of choosing sides where it suits us. I'm sure a huge number of conservatives think very little of Clinton and would be quite offended at the notion that he represents them or their views. Same thing with liberals and Glenn Beck. So why are they speaking for Westerners/America/Christians/whatever NOW, and not when they say and do all the other stupid things they do?

Look. I'm not some sort of crazy hippy. I am sure that in WWII there were plenty of Germans who (while they might have been very resentful of the US) would have much preferred to stay home and not kill anyone or get shot at. And plenty of other Germans who were hopelessly brainwashed. But you're not going to land a bunch of troops in Normandy and then pause to take a poll and figure out which Germans are diehard Nazis and which ones weren't. As much as it would be nice for us not to have an "us vs them" attitude, the reality is that some people have it, which forces others to adapt it as well. If some extremist Muslim group is going to lump people together, so be it. I'm certainly not with "them" so I'll make my stand with Beck and Clinton. It's just better to try and resist that mentality if possible. Sort of going off what P Hudson said, I do not consider there to be a spokesperson for America. (not even the President). But at the same time, I affiliate myself strongly with the group known generally as "Americans."

The problem occurs when how I view my affiliations is different than how you do. My Muslim friends would also group themselves as "Americans." They were raised here, and in at least one case it was precisely because their parents were fleeing from the radicals taking over the country. Just as I was raised here because my parents were booted out of China by Communists, fled to Taiwan, then went to college in America because of the greater opportunity. It's like-- what do you want me to say? You see me as a Chinese guy, I don't see myself that way. How am I supposed to make any sort of sincere apology for something China does? And I don't see why my voice should somehow carry more weight than the average American, because that's how I see myself-- as an average American. If I DO apologize for China and explicitly state I'm not into censorship or sweatshops, am I going to get an apology back from my inquistor "Sorry for affiliating you with some people who killed some of your relatives, took all their property, and drove the rest out of the country." I don't think so.
Anyone who knows me should not have to ask, and anyone who makes that kind of snap judgement is probably not going to have the concerns allayed by my denial.

I'm okay with the notion that regrettably there is a "them" out there in the Muslim community at large. I just don't know who the "them" are, exactly. And while I have moral objections to some of this, I also have equal policy concerns. I don't think we are doing ourselves any favors for our troops our own long term safety and freedom by either overestimating the numbers of the opposition or underestimating them as mindless drones bent only on destroying Western culture. Even if you view a group as the enemy, any military tactician will still tell you that you ought to know your enemy.

I understand that this is easy for me to say, because I don't have skin (quite literally) in the game. If I'm going to Afghanistan where I may die or have to kill someone, I would definitely want to know what's up. Who exactly is the enemy, and who is not? And some reassurances-- especially from those who you are going to war for-- saying "We are not the enemy, we are backing you up" would go along way.

On the other hand, I still feel that looking for PR statements and media coverage seems to be a poor way of trying to "know the enemy." I mean, really-- how hard is this to do? Just send some stooges out to do the dirty work and kill a bunch of people, then issue a press release saying "Of course I would never do such a thing." I mean, people lie in the press all the time.

I was not saying people are wrong when they don't pay much attention to some press releases. They are right. You don't know if this guy is telling the truth, or if how many Muslims actually agree with him. I suppose there is some positive value in PR (otherwise why do people do it?). But when the stakes are this high and the issues this complex, ultimately what we all need to know is not going to come from a press statement.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

JPS:
You are just plain wrong about the apology. And you are missing a key logical step. Americans are not expecting condemnation from Muslims because the perps just happened to be Muslim (which would be analogous to your VA Tech example), but because the perps claimed to be acting as Muslims on behalf of Islam.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

FYI

The killing has started already.

Already, as in a day before the bonfire.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

I would still not demand Christians to condemn Terry Jones simply because Terry Jones claims his acts are in furtherance of Christianity. I don't view this guy as a valid spokesmen for Christians, so what he claims is of no consequence. And I suppose Glenn Beck's condemnation would not "count" then, as he is a Mormon. 

But I think that if I were a Muslim and I got a chance to talk to you as we are doing now and you explained how you felt and why it was important, I would be happy to condemn the terrorists since they deserve it anyway.

So perhaps if you want to set your mind at ease, go find some muslims that you feel are somewhat typical and ask them. I don't mean that in a snarky way. I just think it's the only way to know.


----------



## Wildblue (Oct 11, 2009)

Grrrr... I do hope the world can ramp down from the escalation going on this week.

JPS- you make some good arguments. I don't mean to sound as "us vs. them" as I may come across. I believe when we see wrong actions, that we ALL should stand up and condemn them as wrong. To remain silent gives tacit approval. It doesn't matter whether the person or group involved on either side is one that you can identify with or not. Actually, if a person or group only speaks out when someone they identify with is being victimized, then that tells me that person or group has no integrity--they don't stick up for what is RIGHT, they only stick up for what IS IN THEIR OWN SELFISH BEST INTEREST. Yes, it's difficult to speak out, especially when it's not popular. But it's the right, and intellectually/morally honest thing to do. Otherwise, who will speak up for you, when you are the one being wronged?

So, when something wrong is happening, (or even if it is _perceived_ or _portrayed_ by someone as being wrong) I look to see who stands up and speaks out. Are people going beyond their cultural and national identifications to really stand up for what is RIGHT? Are there people that perpetually remain silent? Are people consistent and honest with what they term as right and wrong, or do they selectively apply standards to suit their own needs?

So... just my perception, but when I see people like Daniel Pearl beheaded, I see mass murders in the name of Islam, I see 9/11 occur, then I see MASSIVE outcry from cultures and nationalities from around the world. As these horrors continue, over and over, I take notice of these various outspoken groups, getting a feel for their sincerity, their values, and try to understand more about them. And then I take notice of the worldwide Muslim community in every nation--rather quiet. Some are silent. Some are literally dancing in the street. Some peacefully and rather calmly state "they deserved it." Some just shrug their shoulders and say "that's what some Muslims do". At best, it seems, a leader will state "killing is bad. But American policies are partially to blame for their own murders." Note that the Manhatten Imam Faisal Rauf is one of those who takes that stance. I specifically remember on September 12th, 2001, a Saudi Prince literally handing Mayor Guliani a check at the smoldering WTC site, turning to the TV camera, and saying the same thing. God bless Guliani--for all his faults, that man handed the check right back to the Saudi prince, and told him we didn't need his money. THAT is an action of integrity.

Maybe my perception is way off. It's entirely possible. Others can step in here about what they perceive of various parts of the Muslim community's reaction to actions done in the name of Islam. Maybe I'm the only one.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Read this if you like, it's actually quite good. Or don't. Other satirical websites are available.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

jean-paul sartorial said:


> I have some Muslim friends. It never occurred to me to pick up the phone on 9/12 and demand an apology or for them to explicitly to set themselves apart from the WTC terrorists.


I would be comforted if you told me they called you and expressed their shame and embarrassment over radical Islamists much the way many have condemned the whack-job Jones here today.

If your freinds were Iranian refugees from the Iatola, I'm confident that's just what they would have done!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Wildblue said:


> Maybe my perception is way off. It's entirely possible. Others can step in here about what they perceive of various parts of the Muslim community's reaction to actions done in the name of Islam. Maybe I'm the only one.


Nope!!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Surely it isn't incumbent of Muslims to apologise for what they haven't personally done? Should I, as a Christian, apologise to Muslims for the Crusades? Should I, as a Christian, aoplogise for what some Russians did to Jews during the pogroms of the 1890's? Should I, as a western European, apologise for the trans-Atlantic Slave Trade? Should I, as an Irish citizen, apologise for the Omagh bombing? Should I, as a British subject, apologise for Bloody Sunday? Should I apologise to Iraqis for the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, of which I took no part? Should I expect Irish-American supporters of the Republican movement in N.Ireland, who didn't fund the IRA, to apologise for the deaths of the children at Warrington in 1993?
In all of these cases the answer is, of course, no.
Why then should there be an expectation that Muslims should apologise for the actions of the terrorists who carried out the atrocity of 9/11?


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray (Jun 7, 2010)

My mate Amir called the 9/11 murderers "Effin Murdering Ar-sole Bar Stewards" and other things unprompted when watching it happen on TV. I don't think his opinion has changed since then. I took that as as close to an apology I expect from my friend, he neither supports or condones the terrorists.

Plus his oldest brother was a JNCO in the Paras, I think he would ahve strong opinions on terrorsts as well.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

I wish people would quit barking about this straw man "apology." No one is demanding any such thing. What people expect (not demand) is a simple unequivocal condemnation similar to what Christian church leaders have done in the context of the Koran burning. Instead all too often after 9/11 we heard Imam Rauf-ish statements composed of brief obligatory condemnation followed by hours of putatively mitigating rationalization and explanation.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

*"Dude, She's just not that into you*

The radical Muslims have hated us since 1948 (or the Crusades) and no amount of appeasement is likely to alter their opinion or actions. We could put a minaret on top of the White House* and they would still be engaged in terrorist actions.
Please consult your history books and note how well the policy's of appeasement worked out for this well dressed gentleman.










The only thing that terrorists understand is force. If we had done genocide or something like it in 1979 when the Iranians took over our embassy for over a year, 9/11 might have been avoided.

At any rate lets all stop wringing our hands about how burning the book or not putting up a mosque, will make the terrorists feel.

Dude, they are just not into us that much and such is the will of Allah.:icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile::icon_smile:

*I know I shouldn't give the Obamas any ideas, but for all I know they already have one planned.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

wildblue, I don't think you are wrong in how you perceive things as shown in the press.

I guess having worked in politics some and not being particularly religious myself, I'm just deeply cynical of any PR move and especially of any person who claims to speaks for a religion.

The reason why people riot in the streets is in part because some of them are just that crazy but also in part because they know this gets them on TV. The terrorists and extremists are very media savvy and do things in a way that gets them maximum exposure for their message. It's PR.

I don't blame you for not trusting Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. I don't trust him either. I think he likes the attention and money so his choice of location was no accident. He is now being viewed as some sort of Muslim spokesperson which I'm sure delights him greatly. His message is mixed because he doesn't want to offend some anyone who might approach him with a large check. 

Even Petraeus and Clinton are thinking in terms of PR-- which means they too are sending a mixed message. It's kind of like "Don't burn holy books because it's just a terribly offensive thing to do. And it makes us look bad and puts the troops and our national security in greater danger. But also, its wrong." 

While Jones himself may only have 50 followers, there are a lot more people in the US who feel as he does. It's certainly not a majority, but imagine if 10,000 people decided to burn Qurans. I'm sure there at least that many people willing to do this out there. Apparently there are at least two on this board. Clinton and Petraeus are not going to explicitly acknowledge this, but the "it puts our troops in danger" bit is specifically targeted to them. So they're sort of "spinning" things as well. Not that I blame them. It's their job.

I guess it comes down to this: I agree that one should judge people by their consistency in condemning immoral acts regardless of whether it impacts their "group." But my feeling is pretty much everyone that gets national press exposure would fail that test. 

They are highly paid to spin a message and get that message out to as many people as possible. They are convincers, not truth-tellers.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Chouan said:


> Read this if you like, it's actually quite good. Or don't. Other satirical websites are available.


That's quite good. 



beherethen said:


> The radical Muslims have hated us since 1948 (or the Crusades) and no amount of appeasement is likely to alter their opinion or actions. We could put a minaret on top of the White House* and they would still be engaged in terrorist actions.
> Please consult your history books and note how well the policy's of appeasement worked out for this well dressed gentleman.
> 
> 
> ...


I'm breaking my usual rule by giving a starved attention whore a bone of response. Still, I have to wonder: When you condone genocide or letting the poor die out -- because as you stated SO ELOQUENTLY they deserve to die because there's too many -- do you also condone abortion? I certainly hope you do, because then your disdain for human life would be just a little more consistent. Not that it would make me think of you much better. You're still a miserable sack of s**t in my opinion.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

Jovan, 
I not only condone abortions, but in my younger days I paid for two of them in *cash.*


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

beherethen said:


> Please consult your history books and note how well the policy's of appeasement worked out for this well dressed gentleman.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually, his policy of appeasement worked quite well. The people of neither Britain nor France were ready for a war in 1938. Having lived through the holocaust of 1914-9, the people of those countres didn't want another one. Chamberlain knew that. Once he realised the depth of Adolf's ambition at Munich, Britain started to rearm, and the government set about preparing Britain's population for the prospect of war.
As far as the terrorist's respect for force, wouldn't it be better to fight their force with intelligence? Or should I say Intelligence? Invading Iraq certainly didn't help the West's position, neither did the occupation of Afghanistan. History should have taught us that military occupation of Afghanistan, or of Mesopotamia has never been successful.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> I wish people would quit barking about this straw man "apology." No one is demanding any such thing. What people expect (not demand) is a simple unequivocal condemnation similar to what Christian church leaders have done in the context of the Koran burning. Instead all too often after 9/11 we heard Imam Rauf-ish statements composed of brief obligatory condemnation followed by hours of putatively mitigating rationalization and explanation.


Aren't they? Read the posts again.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

Chouan said:


> History should have taught us that military occupation of Afghanistan, or of Mesopotamia has never been successful.


In Afghanistan the sides seem to change with the wind or money. Given the Soviets failure and our current results, I can't see why Obama has chosen to increase our presence there. To me, this seems to be a situation in which we should either leave them alone or bomb the country into a sheet of glass.

There doesn't seem to be a great middle ground.


----------



## Wildblue (Oct 11, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Surely it isn't incumbent of Muslims to apologise for what they haven't personally done? Should I, as a Christian, apologise to Muslims for the Crusades? Should I, as a Christian, aoplogise for what some Russians did to Jews during the pogroms of the 1890's? Should I, as a western European, apologise for the trans-Atlantic Slave Trade? Should I, as an Irish citizen, apologise for the Omagh bombing? Should I, as a British subject, apologise for Bloody Sunday? Should I apologise to Iraqis for the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, of which I took no part? Should I expect Irish-American supporters of the Republican movement in N.Ireland, who didn't fund the IRA, to apologise for the deaths of the children at Warrington in 1993?
> In all of these cases the answer is, of course, no.
> Why then should there be an expectation that Muslims should apologise for the actions of the terrorists who carried out the atrocity of 9/11?


Well, first, I applaud you for a post not quoted directly from the Daily Mash, nor bashing America.

Next, I haven't heard of anyone demanding an apology from any Muslims, radical or not. But when radicals do something provocative or violent in the name of Islam, I do think the world notices who speaks up in support of those actions, who speaks up against them, and who remains silent. Has nothing to do with an APOLOGY. Completely separate thing. Do you think that the world is not noticing right now who is speaking out against the proposed Quran burning and who is remaining silent?

I notice that President Obama says that the planned mosque 2 blocks from the WTC is legal under the first amendment, but he otherwise chooses to be silent. In contrast, he says that the Quran burning would be protected under the 1st Amendment, but then launches into robust personal condemnation and galvanizes staff across the US Government to action.



jean-paul sartorial said:


> wildblue, I don't think you are wrong in how you perceive things as shown in the press.


 While I appreciate the acknowledgement, that's rather qualified, don't you think? As in, "Islam is not really how it seems, it's just portrayed that way in the press?"

I am VERY willing to accept Islam as an entity in any way that it shows itself to be. I honestly, truly am ready to accept any truth that is put out there and demonstrated to be genuine. (i.e. it takes more than just a 30 second commercial, an advertising campaign, or a short op-ed piece either glorifying or damning Islam to change my mind) While I'm here in Iraq, I'm doing copious observation as well as some research to really see what the true nature is of Islam. I've learned well that "we all are always constantly establishing our reputation". Islam can make whatever name for itself in the world that it wants. What will it choose to prove itself as?

I do know that right now, the Muslim planners of the Manhatten center/mosque have a HUGE, a TREMENDOUS opportunity to show America and the world what the true nature of Islam is, through their plans and actions. I am very saddened that, as of this point, their actions have been, "I know you've told me how much pain I'm causing you by planning to put this structure as planned 2 blocks from the WTC site. But I'm going to go ahead and do it anyway. Only then will you see how great and loving the religion of Islam is." They are missing out on SUCH a huge opportunity here to show compassion and respect, and that Muslims can be sensitive to others! Instead, they are so focused on getting to the end product, that they are purposefully poking their finger in the eye of the rest of America to get there! Does NOT make for a good demonstration of Muslim values.

I believe the world really **WANTS** to believe that Islam is loving and peaceful. But they're not going to be convinced just by anyone claiming that it is so, nor by being intellectually bullied by political correctness that they better believe it to be true, or they're going to be called racists and bigots. I think their minds are eventually going to be made up based on whatever repeated actions that the Muslim community shows them. Whatever these actions are, are up to the Muslim community themselves to decide what they will be.

I'm hoping they choose good ones.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

Wildblue,
You make some excellent and well stated points. I would be interested in hearing your conclusions based upon your first hand observations and experiences during your tour in the Middle East. Here in America, and certainly in Europe, people are so hung up on being politically correct it is often hard to get at the truth. Likewise some are so narrowminded as to be incapable of an objective opinion.

As a Christian, I personally do not believe that Islam is the correct spiritual path. I do respect the right of other people to believe as they choose and would not, in fact could not, force my personal religious beliefs on anyone. Whether it is truly a relegion of peaceful believers or leans more toward killing all the infidels...I frankly do not know. As you so wisely point out--based on their words and actions--I am frankly more inclined to believe the latter _at this point_. I have heard few reasonable non-prejudiced Muslims...but plenty of non-Mulslim apologists for them. You seem to be a man of discernment and reasonable intent. It will be enlightening to know what you discover.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Chouan said:


> Aren't they? Read the posts again.


I just did. The only post demanding an apology is this one, from you for wasting my time.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

wildblue,

You might want to take a look at the following articles on WSJ which ran yesterday and today:

https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704644404575481882969581708.html
https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703369704575461503431290986.html

I'm not trying to make a point or get the last word in or anything. Just thought you might be interested.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Less than two hours from now. Is it still going? Is it not? Is he moving it to a later time? Is there actually another church in south Florida that will do it? WILL I GET BOMBED BY ANGRY TERRORISTS?

I really don't know.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

beherethen said:


> If we had done genocide or something like it in 1979 when the Iranians took over our embassy for over a year, 9/11 might have been avoided.


Not following your logic there. How many Iranians were aboard the 911 planes, or were involved with its funding or planning? What definitely would have prevented not only 911 and al Qaida, but also the Taliban, is if we had supported the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979/80 instead of putting Osama bin Laden on the CIA payroll and boycotting the freaking Olympic Games. The Soviets didn't occupy the country for eight years because they were bored and had nothing better to do.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

FrankDC said:


> Not following your logic there. How many Iranians were aboard the 911 planes, or were involved with its funding or planning? What definitely would have prevented not only 911.


It would show there would be strong consequences for outrages against the US and this would likely deter future actions.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

Jovan said:


> Less than two hours from now. Is it still going? Is it not? Is he moving it to a later time? Is there actually another church in south Florida that will do it? WILL I GET BOMBED BY ANGRY TERRORISTS?
> 
> I really don't know.


Jovan,
Get a grip. If you feel unsafe, I suggest you visit your local Target Store at 3970 SW Archer RD ,tel (352) 376-5260 and get a 16 inch lanyard machete for $16. You don't need it, but it may calm your nerves.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Hahaha


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

Jovan
I'm glad you caught the humor 
best


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

beherethen said:


> Jovan,
> Get a grip. If you feel unsafe, I suggest you visit your local Target Store at 3970 SW Archer RD ,tel (352) 376-5260 and get a 16 inch lanyard machete for $16. You don't need it, but it may calm your nerves.


Not very sound advice, my friend. As I'm sure you know, machetes are good for one thing only: beheading.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Contrary to this talk of violence, it actually went well. The demonstrations were non-violent and there were no problems with the police. I guess I should have attended -- some of my friends were there. Plus, it's pretty much my duty as a college student to attend a good protest here and there, right? But seriously, I'm glad it didn't turn ugly.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> Contrary to this talk of violence, it actually went well. The demonstrations were non-violent and there were no problems with the police. I guess I should have attended -- some of my friends were there. Plus, it's pretty much my duty as a college student to attend a good protest here and there, right? But seriously, I'm glad it didn't turn ugly.


Do you mean to say it was burned and the world did not end??


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

beherethen said:


> Jovan,
> Get a grip. If you feel unsafe, I suggest you visit your local Target Store at 3970 SW Archer RD ,tel (352) 376-5260 and get a 16 inch lanyard machete for $16. You don't need it, but it may calm your nerves.


We know you are just joking as in FL they can buy real guns at Target, not just the machetes those in Chicago have to rely on!!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Do you mean to say it was burned and the world did not end??


 If you mean the Muslim nations are still pissed off then yes, the world did end.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

Jovan said:


> If you mean the Muslim nations are still pissed off then yes, the world did end.


Oh MY! Whatever shall we do! Quick...get Obama to go on another apology tour. Maybe then they won't hate us and try to hurt us.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Good joke, but in all seriousness we were doing pretty well with Afghanistan until this little stunt.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

16 dead in Kashmir over his stunt. I hope that his Christian conscience doesn't trouble him too much.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Chouan said:


> 16 dead in Kashmir over his stunt. I hope that his Christian conscience doesn't trouble him too much.


Well said.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Jovan said:


> But seriously, I'm glad it didn't turn ugly.


Unlike this thread, which did.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

beherethen said:


> Jovan,
> I not only condone abortions, but in my younger days I paid for two of them in *cash.*


And you admit that openly as if you're proud of it?


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> And you admit that openly as if you're proud of it?


Is he a sociopath or simply a misanthrope? I'm undecided.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

VictorRomeo said:


> Is he a sociopath or simply a misanthrope? I'm undecided.


 I'm inclined to think he is neither. We live in a so called "liberalized society/world" where his stated actions are encouraged and btw, why the judgmental responses? IMO, he is entitled to his opinion/sins/whatever else anyone might want to call them.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Chouan said:


> 16 dead in Kashmir over his stunt. I hope that his Christian conscience doesn't trouble him too much.


This pastor is an idiot for sure. But there is something amiss when Muslim rioters kill innocents in India and the fault rests with the idiot pastor rather than the Muslim rioters.

And still waiting for an apology.....


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
+1. I am inclined to agree with Mike on this one. Surely our least favorite, Florida Pastor is an idiot but, it was the Muslim rioters who chose to do the harm in India...rather than issue a Fatwa against Rev Terry Jones! :icon_scratch:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> Good joke, but in all seriousness we were doing pretty well with Afghanistan until this little stunt.


How could things be going well if an amature stunt by a whack job WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN IGNORED torques off even bigger whack jobs into a frenzy of violence??


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> This pastor is an idiot for sure. But there is something amiss when Muslim rioters kill innocents in India and the fault rests with the idiot pastor rather than the Muslim rioters.
> 
> And still waiting for an apology.....


The fault of course rests with him for giving them the excuse. If one has a gang of extremists looking for a pretext for a riot, then the person responsible is the one who gives them the excuse.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Chouan said:


> The fault of course rests with him for giving them the excuse. If one has a gang of extremists looking for a pretext for a riot, then the person responsible is the one who gives them the excuse.


Exhibit A: the infected liberal mindset of a comfortable socialist Westerner


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Pentheos said:


> Exhibit A: the infected liberal mindset of a comfortable socialist Westerner


Sounds an awful lot like blaming the victim to me!!


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Pentheos said:


> Exhibit A: the infected liberal mindset of a comfortable socialist Westerner


Exactly. And like many Libs he is apparently uncomfortable with making apologies, except perhaps on behalf of America or Americans.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Now, now you all. Be nice to us Libs. I found a stray Conservative recently, fed him, wrapped him warmly and took him to the pound where I was assured he would be neutered and given to a good home. 

So see, we Libs do care about you. And as for Petrik's charge that we never apologize for anything, here Mike, I'll let you fill in this blank: I, Peak & Pine, would like to sincerely apologize for ___________________________________.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

It seems like a false dichotomy to blame only one side or the other. Or even to assign relative amounts of blame. They are both jackasses of the highest order, and to my mind both Jones and the rioters are equally murderers. The fact that Jones baited someone into doing his dirty work for him doesn't absolve him of murder any more than it would have if he hired a hit man.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

jean-paul sartorial said:


> It seems like a false dichotomy to blame only one side or the other. Or even to assign relative amounts of blame. They are both jackasses of the highest order, and to my mind both Jones and the rioters are equally murderers. The fact that Jones baited someone into doing his dirty work for him doesn't absolve him of murder any more than it would have if he hired a hit man.


Try getting that charge to stick!!

I smell an acquittal!!

On this point however, "They are both jackasses of the highest order" you may be correct.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> Now, now you all. Be nice to us Libs. I found a stray Conservative recently, fed him, wrapped him warmly and took him to the pound where I was assured he would be neutered and given to a good home.
> 
> So see, we Libs do care about you. And as for Petrik's charge that we never apologize for anything, here Mike, I'll let you fill in this blank: I, Peak & Pine, would like to sincerely apologize for ___________________________________.


Why what a nice surprise, Peak. Many thoughts come to mind given your rather notorious behavior in these forums, but I'll be satisfied with "acting like a clueless celebrity by wearing a solid black suit."

For the record, I always knew you were a gentleman and a scholar. Your "sincere" apology is exactly what I would expect from you. I give it twice the weight as the one I will not receive from Chouan.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

The idiot pastor is a jackass and I have no problem according him some moral responsiblity for the murders. But the notion that he is as responsible for the murders as the rioters who actually committed them is a first rate example of bankrupt moral analysis.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

I have no problem calling him a murderer, and that's enough.

On a scale of 1-1000 of how big an a-hole you can be, I don't really see the point of arguing who might be a 997 vs a 998. Maybe Hitler was worse than Pol Pot. Maybe not. I don't care.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> And you admit that openly as if you're proud of it?


 Not that I owe you any explanation but in each instance, I offered to marry or pay for the abortion and abortion was the girl's choice. I'm not particularly proud of it or not proud of it, but within the context of the time, it seemed like the correct thing to do. I still think it was the responsible thing to do, but I'm not trying to impose my view point on anyone else.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

Chouan said:


> 16 dead in Kashmir over his stunt. I hope that his Christian conscience doesn't trouble him too much.


The 16 dead in Kashmir has more to do with ongoing Indian/Muslim disputes then anything this preacher did or didn't do. Apparently most of the victims were Muslims killed by the Indians. Perhaps if the UK had divided the area better such things could be avoided, but this has nothing to do with the USA. Perhaps if the UK hadn't colonized the area, they would all live in blissful peace, but this is shear speculation.


----------



## VictorRomeo (Sep 11, 2009)

All I'll say is it's complicated. Very complicated. In such societies, the smallest piece of agitation can spark up a massive riot and is underpinned by many, many issues - not least the one mentioned above. The media knows this as do the agitators. They know what they're doing and the implications of their actions - and they know very well that something as provocative as the burning of the Quaran will cause massive civil unrest in the all the usual places.

They are certainly not innocent shoulder shruggers in the mess that has unfolded. 

However, as a libertarian I believe that one is ultimatly responsible for one's own actions and as such there is little sympathy from me for those who lost their lives when they decided to go out that day and raise hell. Save for the policeman who lost his life of course. Would these riots have occured if these acts had not taken place? Unlikely, but with that said Kashmir is a tinderbox and any old thing could have set them off.

But, the agents provocateurs know who they are how to incite. The know the media won't refuse ink/type/pics/vids and they have the web publish to the world.

For now, it was group of rioters and an unfortunate cop in Kashmir. Makes it easy for the public at large to distance themselves from that scenario and blame it on those dang crazy Muslims gone nutty again.

Next time, it might be an American soldier/journalist/aid worker in a dank basement, beheaded while a masked terrorist thanks Pastor Terry for a new excuse to execute an American.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

I, similarly, have little sympathy for them. However, he directly gave them the excuse they were looking for. As VR suggests, who might they choose to attack next, if another irresponsible "reverend" pulls another publicity stunt?
I'm not saying it's right, but it is how it is....


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

VictorRomeo said:


> Next time, it might be an American soldier/journalist/aid worker in a dank basement, beheaded while a masked terrorist thanks Pastor Terry for a new excuse to execute an American.


I'm confident the same old excuses will be good enough!!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

But why give them more?


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

Chouan said:


> But why give them more?


Water is wet and rocks are hard and that's pretty much how it is. The current fighting in Kashmir has been going on since June 11th, long before anyone heard of the pastor. It's likely to be going on in one form or another long after this pastor is dead and buried. 
Unless we are willing to "push Israel into the sea" and all adopt Islam, there will still be fighting. The cost for peace is too high.
Even if we all adopt Islam, there will still be fighting because some of us will be of different brands. 
The real solution is a cost effective electric car so we can let them eat their oil.:icon_smile:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Chouan said:


> I, similarly, have little sympathy for them. However, he directly gave them the excuse they were looking for. As VR suggests, who might they choose to attack next, if another irresponsible "reverend" pulls another publicity stunt?
> I'm not saying it's right, but it is how it is....


When the source of such "provocation" is secular and hep, say, "draw Mohammad day" or an episode of South Park, how is it their provocations are harmless, while the ranting bible thumper gets poo-poo'd by the POTUS, Gen. Petreus and the National Media??


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

Because the national media and Obama hate white Christians. It's all part of their master plan to destroy what is clearly a morally and fiscally superior lifestyle and replace it with a form Gay Socialism.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

HA!!

I would have settled for an acknowledgement of a double-standard!!


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> HA!!
> 
> I would have settled for an acknowledgement of a double-standard!!


But why do that when you can respond with a sarcastic straw man?


----------



## young guy (Jan 6, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> But why do that when you can respond with a sarcastic straw man?


well when straw is all you have ....


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

*sigh* Okay, fine.

The offending parts of the South Park strip aired before people knew about it, and then were promptly pulled by Comedy Central. What would be the point in Obama saying it was a bad idea?

The person who started the "Draw a cartoon of Muhammed" did so as a joke, then apologized for it and stated she never had any plans to follow through. Then she got death threats and went into hiding on the advice of the FBI. What is it you expect Obama to do? It would be counterproductive for him to risk her life by throwing her on the news over an event she disassociated herself from. 

There is no double standard in the media. Or perhaps better said, there are so many double standards in the media that it balances out and conservatives have no cause to complain. For every smirking Ohlbermann or Rachel Maddow piece, Fox has a counter talking head of at least the same level of obnoxiousness. As long as Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh draw millions of viewers and Fox is the most popular news channel, conservative voices are not being shut out.

Glenn Beck talked about Terry Jones. Glenn Beckis wildly popular. Every day he finds some item supposedly being ignored by the "main stream" media and makes sure to talk about it to force it into the national spotlight. You're complaining about that?

I don't know how and why certain events get drawn into the national spotlight, but if Obama and the national media are part of a conspiracy, I'm not sure what they are gaining from that "Situation" guy on MTV or Britney Spears.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

jean-paul sartorial said:


> *sigh* Okay, fine.
> 
> The offending parts of the South Park strip aired before people knew about it, and then were promptly pulled by Comedy Central. What would be the point in Obama saying it was a bad idea?
> 
> The person who started the "Draw a cartoon of Muhammed" did so as a joke, then apologized for it and stated she never had any plans to follow through. Then she got death threats and went into hiding on the advice of the FBI. What is it you expect Obama to do?


I don't expect an equal over-reaction the way Jones was treated, I expect equal inaction.

Jones should have remained in obscrurity.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

Probably so. 

I'm simply pointing out that the fact that Jones did not remain in obscurity has as much to do with his insatiable desire for press and master baiting skills along with the conservative bloggers and news outlets also running with the story as it does the supposed liberal media or Obama.

I can certainly understand the view that Obama handled the situation poorly. I just don't see how you can draw a parallel between that and the two other situations. Jones was not going to go away on his own. It's a mistake, not part of a grand conspiracy.

When I got home yesterday, my contractor was listening to some rightwing radio talk show guy. The guy was going on and on and on and on about O'Donnell and the MTV/abstinence thing and how it shouldn't be such a big deal in the press but it is blahblahblah.

This guy spent a solid hour talking about it. If you want something to die down don't spend an hour yakking about it, you know? If people's personal beliefs shouldn't be in the national news, then why did you just mention like 15 times how much you admired her Christianity and how America needs more Christians?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Yeah, Delaware is a real zoo now!! (I'm from there, moved 20 years ago) 

Chick ran against Biden in '08~Obscruity

Today~All hell breaks loose!!


----------



## Wildblue (Oct 11, 2009)

No. Hurt feelings from words/drawings/peaceful actions are NEVER "an excuse" for violence. No insidious justification at all for these violent uprisings.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

Mr. Jones arrived in New York several hours before I did on September 11th.

While I admit that I didn't follow the news as closely as I normally do, it was my observation that absolutely no one in New york cared about what he was doing but the reporters who caught him at the airport.

I suppose I'll have to catch up on my reading to find out if he met with anyone and what the result was.

Members of this forum will be interested to note that for his flight from Florida to New York, Mr. Jones was wearing a t-shirt and quite possibly shorts.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

Chouan said:


> The fault of course rests with him for giving them the excuse. If one has a gang of extremists looking for a pretext for a riot, then the person responsible is the one who gives them the excuse.


Doesn't this suggest that one must consider the opinions, tastes, and beliefs of total strangers with whom one has no contact when expressing one's own opinions, tastes, and beliefs?

People rioted in LA after the Rodney King verdict. They rioted when the Lakers won the NBA championship. In both cases, people wanting to destroy someone else's property and steal things found a reason that the media would accept as an "excuse."


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Rioting over the result of sporting activity does seem to be a little contrived, but why do you think that they rioted after the Rodney King verdict?


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

Miket61 said:


> Doesn't this suggest that one must consider the opinions, tastes, and beliefs of total strangers with whom one has no contact when expressing one's own opinions, tastes, and beliefs?


Yes. I guess I'm not seeing a problem with that.


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray (Jun 7, 2010)

I hear he is being billed for the costs of his police protection. How does that work?


----------

