Don't burn the Quran, but beheadings are OK...

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Of course they both have the right to do it, but it's foolish to try to place one group trying to freely practice their religion at some moral equivalence as a group actively doing nothing but causing a scene by trashing another religion and burning their holy book, whether they agree with it or not.

If Muslims wanted to open an anti-Christian center two blocks from Ground Zero and have piss on the Bible parties, or a center that celebrated the perpetrators of 9/11 as glorious examples of what Muslims are all about, then maybe you'd have a point, but as far as I can tell, they don't, so in turn, you don't.

They can all do whatever they want, because it's their right, but that's just ridiculous to pretend these two are the exact same thing. The only things they really have in common are 1.) They both have the right to do it 2.) Some people oppose each of them.

No more than that, because they're worlds apart, and it's not a matter of "inconsistency" to point that out.

stop being inconsistent. Both actions are covered under that precious 1st amendment. They are the same thing when you look at it through the eyes of the Constitution.

Both actions are insensitive. Muslim terrorists killed 3k at ground zero and now there will be a muslim mosque right there. Insensitive to a lot of New Yorkers. If the Iman cared, or had any class, he'd understand that.

The Koran burning party is insensitive to a religion. Also happens to be a relgion that the radicals get riled up to kill others when they see Korans burning on tv. If the pastor had any brains, or class, he'd understand that.

The Koran burning party also happens to be idiotic and useless. The Muslim mosque can move down the street and nobody would have a problem.

They are both insensitive to different groups of people.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Also happens to be a relgion that the radicals get riled up to kill others when they see Korans burning on tv.

So what? Are we supposed to be all scared now? Keep the military on alert and whoever tries something against our guys won't be around too long.

Bottom line: since the moderates are not speaking out and only the radicals have the microphone, "kill the infidels" and all that bull... they are not going to get much tolerance as they themselves give none.

How's this: would the protests get bigger if instead of burning one Quran they burn 10, 100, 1000, or 10,000? When you start out at maximum shrillness and riot-like behavior, it's tough to go up from there.

How does this book burning -- which I am not supporting -- compare to the beheadings of Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, and several others? Where's our protests and reaction?

They burn our flag all the time over there -- and the Star of David too. They burn our leaders in effigy. They rioted over cartoons published in Denmark. Maybe this pastor in Florida sees it as a little payback.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by joeydb

So what? Are we supposed to be all scared now? Keep the military on alert and whoever tries something against our guys won't be around too long.

Bottom line: since the moderates are not speaking out and only the radicals have the microphone, "kill the infidels" and all that bull... they are not going to get much tolerance as they themselves give none.

How's this: would the protests get bigger if instead of burning one Quran they burn 10, 100, 1000, or 10,000? When you start out at maximum shrillness and riot-like behavior, it's tough to go up from there.

How does this book burning -- which I am not supporting -- compare to the beheadings of Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, and several others? Where's our protests and reaction?

They burn our flag all the time over there -- and the Star of David too. They burn our leaders in effigy. They rioted over cartoons published in Denmark. Maybe this pastor in Florida sees it as a little payback.

The pastor in Florida doesnt care about Jesus, his payback, the Muslims.. he cares about having his 15 minutes of fame and say "look what I can do". Most all churches like his are the same.. absolutely ridiculous to the point where you have to question the sanity of the members. Which is why its been around for 24 years and only has 50 members.

My post to BWS wasnt comparing burning books to beheadings. Not at all. It was about the similarities between Koran burning and Mosque building.

You dont think there was any reaction about beheadings? Dont act like I'm some Muslim apologist because I dont think this pastor should be holding his event. I have zero respect for the Islam religion. I'm quite sure my posts on the subject will confirm that.

The pastor is only doing this for himself, and he is just pouring fuel on a fire that is already very hot to begin with. He's an un-american idiot.

If he cared at all about his supposed message, and this burning meant anything to him.. he wouldnt be making it into a media event.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

So what? Are we supposed to be all scared now? Keep the military on alert and whoever tries something against our guys won't be around too long.

Bottom line: since the moderates are not speaking out and only the radicals have the microphone, "kill the infidels" and all that bull... they are not going to get much tolerance as they themselves give none.

How's this: would the protests get bigger if instead of burning one Quran they burn 10, 100, 1000, or 10,000? When you start out at maximum shrillness and riot-like behavior, it's tough to go up from there.

How does this book burning -- which I am not supporting -- compare to the beheadings of Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, and several others? Where's our protests and reaction?

They burn our flag all the time over there -- and the Star of David too. They burn our leaders in effigy. They rioted over cartoons published in Denmark. Maybe this pastor in Florida sees it as a little payback.

that is simply untrue. when the moderate muslim in new york was speaking, or trying to, everyone was only talking about folks like the guy you linked to above. thing is, the agenda is that all muslims are evil, so only articles that exhibit that are generally being posted.
as for this line from the article:

'the tolerance and commitment to dialog by Muslims is being displayed overseas by Australian Muslim preacher Feiz Mohammad'.

this guy speaks for all muslims? he's hired by them? i doubt it. he's no more their spokesman than jesse jackson is for all african-americans, or sarah palin
for all republicans.

people with an agenda will find things to support their view, while ignoring everything else that goes against their opinion-it even has a scientific name.

[clyde]

Danny...is there a way we could get you to go back to Memphis?




Don't you have those blues yet?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by clyde

Danny...is there a way we could get you to go back to Memphis?




Don't you have those blues yet?

sure, send me the money we'd miss by skipping work, and we'd be glad to go back.

[clyde]

Originally Posted by Danzig

sure, send me the money we'd miss by skipping work, and we'd be glad to go back.

But you live in Pleasantville...you have plenty of money and don't need to work.


What?...no vacay photos?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by clyde

But you live in Pleasantville...you have plenty of money and don't need to work.


What?...no vacay photos?

if i didn't work, i wouldn't have plenty of money.

and i can't show my photos on here...

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Danzig

people with an agenda will find things to support their view, while ignoring everything else that goes against their opinion-it even has a scientific name.

Well, you do this every couple days or so on here. Lets get something straight here. The guy who started this "religion" did it with massive force. He terrorized people into joining. He was a butcher. Now, if you want to believe something said by the followers of a butcher, then, that's you. I'm not gunna believe anything the followers of a butcher have to say. Moral people aren't interested in following the teachings of a butcher. Period. Excuse us for not believing the followers of a damn butcher...Good grief.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

if this guy wants to burn a book he can..thats his right...all the outside pressure from all the other religons is pretty grand stand to me..it wont make them hate americans any more than they already do.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

Well, you do this every couple days or so on here. Lets get something straight here. The guy who started this "religion" did it with massive force. He terrorized people into joining. He was a butcher. Now, if you want to believe something said by the followers of a butcher, then, that's you. I'm not gunna believe anything the followers of a butcher have to say. Moral people aren't interested in following the teachings of a butcher. Period. Excuse us for not believing the followers of a damn butcher...Good grief.

lol
i have read your take on muslims a million times scuds. but not all muslims subscribe to all that mohammed said, or bin laden and his fellow wahabi followers. that probably explains why there are variations of the religion...just like all catholics don't avoid birth control, all baptists don't avoid alcohol and dancing, etc, etc, not all muslims believe in all the things that the wahabbis do. or the sufi..or the shiite, the sunni...
i see the rantings and ravings, the 'they're all bad' articles...unlike you, i actually consider more than one point of view. personally, i don't know why anyone follows any certain religion, but that's just me.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

Originally Posted by Danzig

lol
i have read your take on muslims a million times scuds. but not all muslims subscribe to all that mohammed said, or bin laden and his fellow wahabi followers. that probably explains why there are variations of the religion...just like all catholics don't avoid birth control, all baptists don't avoid alcohol and dancing, etc, etc, not all muslims believe in all the things that the wahabbis do. or the sufi..or the shiite, the sunni...
i see the rantings and ravings, the 'they're all bad' articles...unlike you, i actually consider more than one point of view. personally, i don't know why anyone follows any certain religion, but that's just me.

He was a butcher. How ya getting by that? He had sex with a girl still playing with her dolls. At some point, you've got to be a little suspect of people that follow someone like this. Their version of God involves someone of this sort? At some point, it comes down to morals, and they're following the teachings of an immoral person. So, I really don't know how you can trust anything you hear or read from people that follow someone like this. Not all Muslims subscribe to what he said? You ever hear them say he's was wrong?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SCUDSBROTHER

He was a butcher. How ya getting by that? He had sex with a girl still playing with her dolls. At some point, you've got to be a little suspect of people that follow someone like this. Their version of God involves someone of this sort? At some point, it comes down to morals, and they're following the teachings of an immoral person. So, I really don't know how you can trust anything you hear or read from people that follow someone like this. Not all Muslims subscribe to what he said? You ever hear them say he's was wrong?

scuds, several threads contain quotes from a variety of muslims who spoke out against 9-11, against violence, who preach and believe in being a modern religions, without the violence. yet, you and others who want only to hate an entire group based on the actions of a few have completely refused to even acknowledge that.

you say how can i get by that? how do mormons get by some of what their book contains? gems, the garden of eden in missouri..the bible, with talking snakes, guys living in fish for days, and people walking on water while the spirit gets a virgin knocked up....people don't focus on the unbelievable, or the violence-you stone anyone for growing more than one crop in a field lately? yet you're only focusing on the violence in the quran, koran, however it's spelled. i think it's an oversimplification.
i was just as horrified as anyone when 9-11 occurred. it would be easy to say kill them all, or to demand revenge. that takes a lot less thought and rationalization, doesn't it? it almost makes one sound very much like that which one has come to hate. we need rational thought, not emotion, not knee-jerk reactions. you refuse to believe that every muslim doesn't engage in violence, doesn't believe in strapping on a bomb, stonings, mutilations, acid attacks, etc. you see the guy throwing the acid, without considering the thought process of the man who allows his daughters to go to school, or to work, or to drive, or to marry the man they chose. it's a man who has come to understand that backward thinking won't work. multiply that man times a hundred, a thousand. those are the people, who happen to be muslim, that we should be supporting. you're lumping them all together, which is unfair to the many muslims who want modernity, peace, understanding. they exist-i just think it's a shame that only the few monsters get all the talk, the attention, and are thought to be the only representatives of the muslim world.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

stop being inconsistent. Both actions are covered under that precious 1st amendment. They are the same thing when you look at it through the eyes of the Constitution.

Both actions are insensitive. Muslim terrorists killed 3k at ground zero and now there will be a muslim mosque right there. Insensitive to a lot of New Yorkers. If the Iman cared, or had any class, he'd understand that.

The Koran burning party is insensitive to a religion. Also happens to be a relgion that the radicals get riled up to kill others when they see Korans burning on tv. If the pastor had any brains, or class, he'd understand that.

The Koran burning party also happens to be idiotic and useless. The Muslim mosque can move down the street and nobody would have a problem.

They are both insensitive to different groups of people.

I certainly don't want to "pull a Riot," but I am forced to when I say: can you read?

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Of course they both have the right to do it.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

They can all do whatever they want, because it's their right

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

1.) They both have the right to do it

I was hoping that three times in one single post would be more than enough for you to realize that there's no issue of consistency, as you'll be hard-pressed to find a place where I said they shouldn't burn the Koran....don't waste your time looking, because I didn't say it.

But to compare using a right to freely practice a religion with using a right to exercise free speech for no other reason than to antagonize a religion is insane. Of course (here, I'll say it again for clarity), they're the same in that they both have the right to do it, but they're hardly the same thing in any other way.

One is nasty and done out of sheer, admitted animus. The other is done out of the desire to freely practice religion. You're way too bright to not see any distinction at all and think that it's just ho-hum, people are offended, those are exactly the same thing. That's among the more pathetic attempts at moral equivalence I've ever seen.

Oh, and:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

and now there will be a muslim mosque right there.

What do you mean "now there will be?"

There already is one. Hysteria overload.

[Antitrust32]

you dont think that the Mosque in ground zero is offensive, so that is where we differ.

I dont think they are equally offensive. One is insensitive and the other is insensitive and idiotic. But they do share some common traits, that you dont see.

I was pointing out the that WH has two different opinions on fairly similar free speech issues. You came back with the.. "you have no point".

We differ on the common theme of the two issues.

I'm all for both not happening... the pastor angers me more because he is putting lives in danger.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

you dont think that the Mosque in ground zero is offensive, so that is where we differ.

I dont think they are equally offensive. One is insensitive and the other is insensitive and idiotic. But they do share some common traits, that you dont see.

I was pointing out the that WH has two different opinions on fairly similar free speech issues. You came back with the.. "you have no point".

We differ on the common theme of the two issues.

I'm all for both not happening... the pastor angers me more because he is putting lives in danger.

Well, I said that because I think you have no point that they should deserve the same kind of response, because they're completely different things by way of their root causes. One is free practice of religion for no other reason than to freely practice religion. The other is exercise of freedom of speech for no other reason than to antagonize an entire religion. They're very dissimilar in nearly every regard besides 1.) people exercising their right to do things and 2.) certain groups seeing them as insensitive. Things being insensitive to certain groups of people does not mean that they necessarily deserve similar responses.

Passing gas on a crowded train is insensitive to certain groups of people, as is murdering a family of six to other groups of people.

I wouldn't imagine that those two exactly similar things that are insensitive to certain groups of people should deserve the same response.

Of course I'm being hyperbolic with that, but just because things are "insensitive" to groups of people does not mean they should be treated equally just based on the sheer fact that certain people are offended by them.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Well, I said that because I think you have no point that they should deserve the same kind of response, because they're completely different things by way of their root causes. One is free practice of religion for no other reason than to freely practice religion. The other is exercise of freedom of speech for no other reason than to antagonize an entire religion. They're very dissimilar in nearly every regard besides 1.) people exercising their right to do things and 2.) certain groups seeing them as insensitive. Things being insensitive to certain groups of people does not mean that they necessarily deserve similar responses.

Passing gas on a crowded train is insensitive to certain groups of people, as is murdering a family of six to other groups of people.

I wouldn't imagine that those two exactly similar things that are insensitive to certain groups of people should deserve the same response.

Of course I'm being hyperbolic with that, but just because things are "insensitive" to groups of people does not mean they should be treated equally just based on the sheer fact that certain people are offended by them.

But 3,000 lives lost & the WTC crashing down wasnt some little event like passing gas on a crowded train. The NYC mosque is a big deal to a lot of Americans. Just like burning books is a big deal to Muslims.

Where they differ is that this pastor is a huge idiot who is only looking for some spotlight.. and the Mosque Imam just doesnt care if he is offending New Yorkers and Americans. His apathy is obvious because he wont even look into moving the mosque, eventhough many people are deeply offended.

We are not going to see eye to eye on the Mosque issue. But its not like I disagree with you on the Koran burning party.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

But 3,000 lives lost & the WTC crashing down wasnt some little event like passing gas on a crowded train. The NYC mosque is a big deal to a lot of Americans. Just like burning books is a big deal to Muslims.

Where they differ is that this pastor is a huge idiot who is only looking for some spotlight.. and the Mosque Imam just doesnt care if he is offending New Yorkers and Americans. His apathy is obvious because he wont even look into moving the mosque, eventhough many people are deeply offended.

We are not going to see eye to eye on the Mosque issue. But its not like I disagree with you on the Koran burning party.

And where we disagree is that he shouldn't have to -- that's not what freedom of religion is all about -- when we like it, it's all good, but when we don't like it then we should kindly ask people to forego certain parts of it to make us happy. Sure, they say, go ahead and practice your religion...just when and where we're comfortable with it?

That's not how it works.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

And where we disagree is that he shouldn't have to -- that's not what freedom of religion is all about -- when we like it, it's all good, but when we don't like it then we should kindly ask people to forego certain parts of it to make us happy. Sure, they say, go ahead and practice your religion...just when and where we're comfortable with it?

That's not how it works.

I dont think the Mosque should HAVE to move. Its a protected right. I think they SHOULD move out of respect. If the Imam had a little heart, he should be able to understand that.

The pastor has a protected right to burn the books. He should not do that, and I dont have to get into the reasons why he shouldnt because they are obvious. The book burning pisses me off a lot more that the Mosque because of the ramifications overseas. If this causes one additional death or beheading, then hopefully karma will visit this stupid Pastor.