Quran burning

[hyphenate]

As we are all aware, more wars have been fought over religion throughout history than for any other reason: Times haven't changed. You have this idiot in Florida who is going ahead with Quran burning, even though there is a definite threat to our soldiers in the Middle East from such hatred and intolerance, and nothing is going to change his mind, and those of his church. I really think that people who practice this brand of religion are mentally warped--they seem to be unable to acknowledge that they're loonier than fruitcakes.

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Evangelical-Christian-Group-in-Florida-Plans-to-Burn-Korans-102394819.html

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[malaise]

2. Why is this fool getting so much airplay?

My wish is for the wind to be blowing and burn down his megachurch

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. "than for any other reason"

Could you back that up with some statistics?

[A HERETIC I AM]

5. Ego and greed, NOT religion.

No statistics needed, just common sense.

All wars are fought for only two reasons;

Ego and greed.

Religious wars are (edited to say - should read "often") ego wars.

"My god's better than yours!"

"Oh yeah? Take that!"

The rest, be they for resources or whatever, are greed wars.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. "no statistics needed"

Yeah, statistics needed.

[A HERETIC I AM]

10. Nope.

Those are the only reasons wars are fought and ever have been, since the beginning of human conflict.

Either out of ego or greed.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. That wasn't the issue.

OP claimed, probably falsely, that religion is the cause of most wars in history.

I asked for substance to that claim. You claim that wars are about egos, and religions are about egos. And therefore wars are about religions.

And I think you know that's bullshit.

[A HERETIC I AM]

19. You've got it backward.

"You claim that wars are about egos," I said ego and greed.


"and religions are about egos. To an extent. Religion is also in large part about greed. Always has been.

"And therefore wars are about religions.

Big jump you made there. That not what I said. Religious wars can boil down to being a bit of both ego and greed. The greed part comes in where there exists the potential control of a portion of an economy (which it is often the case) and the ego part comes in when the issue amounts to a simple argument over which god or sect is superior.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. You're still dancing around the issue.

Why?

[hyphenate]

16. I think there are enough instances

spanish inquisition
world war II (European theatre)
crusades
taiping rebellion


One website: http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REFORM/WARS.HTM

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. Well, first off, the spanish inquisition wasn't a war.

Second, WWII started when Hitler invaded Poland. And he didn't do it for religious reasons.

Third, the Taiping Rebellion was ethnic and political, regardless of Hong Xiquan's personal christian views.

I'll grant you the Crusades. Although I don't think they count for the majority of all wars.

[Bobbieo]

25. Whiki- said something like 7% of 123 wars were started in the name of religion.

[npk]

41. Hate it when statistic get in the way. n/t

[Cirque du So-What]

4. I disagree with the contention that any wars have their basis in religious differences

although I will admit that religion has been used as a convenient excuse for war on countless occasions. Stripped of pretense, all wars have a basis in economics.

I do agree that these assholes are putting US troops and others in danger with their hateful acts.

[gophates]

6. Much less so than the asshole who sent them over there in the first place.

This guy is a piss-ant compared to the butcher of crawford.

[Swamp Rat]

7. If he goes through with it, he may need to build an ark and sail away

to a distant, uncharted island somewhere. The concept of free speech will not be relevant to millions of people more than angry with him. :hide:

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. He has one thing in common with the people they are going to enrage

they are both stuck in the 12th century.

And I'd hate to be a NATO trooper, or NGO worker... after 9.11

[butterfly77]

12. They are shocked...

Shocked let me tell you! Aren't these the same people who say they don't want government controlling our lives but when it comes to religion follow the leader,this asshole says he worships bush.

How in the hell do they continue to believe this shit? They grew up on it and some of them don't know anything but what they see in their little subdivision or town that's why they have just come to the realization that their are Muslims in this country.

Why weren't they complaining when bush brought them to the whitehouse and brought families to this country didn't they say they were in Iraq to save the Iraqi people and in Afghanistan to save their women,but they don't give a damn about women in this country a bunch of damned hypocrites...

[Canuckistanian]

13. This is front page news here in Canada

This fool won't be happy unless he causes mass deaths in the ME, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

If this idiot goes through with his plans, I predict embassy bombings for a DECADE.

This is some serious international shit.

[Bobbieo]

15. Is the Rev. Terry Jones trying to upstage Glenn Beck or will Beck join him at the burning?

[hyphenate]

17. I think even Beck

would be smart enough to leave this one alone.

[Canuckistanian]

20. Beck is seen as a joke here, really

But this Jones guy is seen as a dangerous extremist - which he is.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. You know any Murican traveling abroad

might get a clue of this.

You are correct, this is some serious shit. And I am willing to bet the preacher gets it... he WANTS the great final battle to come, sooner the better. So he is willing to give it a push.

But many round these parts don't get this.

[pipoman]

14. People need to quit giving them air time and band width

but they should be allowed to burn any effigy they wish. Liberals have fought long and hard for the right to express ourselves through the burning of effigies.

[hyphenate]

18. There is a fiine line between what is acceptable

as free speech, and what crosses the line as hate speech and intolerance.

[firehorse]

21. Agreed. This guy is running an anti-islamic hate group.

While having the nerve to use the peace symbol of a dove in his fake church's name. Send him to Kabal.

[pipoman]

28. So what?

He isn't calling for anyone to be murdered. He is allowed to espouse hate as he should be.

[pipoman]

27. I don't believe in "hate speech", it is merely an excuse to limit

free speech. The line has been drawn on free speech..inciting, causing false panic, slander and libel (civil penalties). Beyond that, simply espousing hatred is and should be protected.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. So what happens when people get killed abroad over this?

no, not a theoretical question... since we know the last rumor of koran damage came with some heavy cost at Jalalabad?

So the line should be ONLY if this happens in the US?

I am being serious here.

Or if this directly is linked to the death of a US Soldier, UN Worker, or US Civilian? Can I charge this guy for that? Again serious.

This is closer to screaming fire in a crowded theater than people actually realize.

It will also make travel abroad damn fun... even when AWAY from the Arab world....

[pipoman]

34. No

I can't be responsible for the irrational response of someone else anymore than, say, a pro wrestler can be responsible for a dumb kid hitting his friend over the head with a chair. Understand, I am not saying I approve of this bonehead's plan, only that there should be nothing preventing him from doing it...it is a legitimate example of free speech. If some other idiot decides to harm another person because of it, I hope that idiot is made to pay for his crime.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. I see... so words have no consequences

and it is the OTHER who is crazy.

That I call provincial thinking.

This is already having REAL effects in the world stage, and they are not nice.

But I guess unless it happens in the US... it didn't happen.

By the way, both this guy and the people thinking that desecrating (insert religious book here) is an attack on their god and faith are both stuck in the 12th century. But if you think this will not have REAL consequences... and we should just protect it for protection sake...

By the way, he can LEGALLY do it... but whatever. Since I will have to travel SOON... I will have to HIDE the fact that yes indeed I AM an American.

I guess we should force people to travel ABROAD to buy a clue. This is some serious shit... but I am sure a NATO soldier who gets killed on this, well died for our freedoms. The same for the UN worker, NGO worker, or US Civilian... amazing how people really don't get this.

And yes they have the RIGHT to do this... don't mean this is going to be healthy.

[pipoman]

38. So it is a reasonable and acceptable response

to murder a human being over the destruction of ANY single inanimate object? Are you suggesting that he shouldn't be allowed to burn (insert any inanimate object) because of the fear that some nut case might kill someone? Better shut down the presses immediately.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. What I am saying is that there will be consequences

that inanimate object is a cultural item... and for people trapped in the 12th century it is an attack on their god. You might get it if we put the shoe on the other foot and decided to burn 100 bibles.

Legally they can do that. But there will be consequences. Most Americans don't understand what happens OUTSIDE US Borders, or how this will affect Americans abroad. It will.

What do they say about freedom and rights? Use them responsibly. This is not...

And while legally they can, and most likely they will, be aware that people WILL DIE over this. And to some of us, hiding our identity as Americans while abroad will be a new hobby.

[pipoman]

44. Burn what you like..we have no right to not be offended

100 bibles or 1000, who gives a shit. Look, I understand the danger, my son is a Marine. This is me saying that freedom is actually worth fighting for..to curtail a fundamental right which is THE key component in a free society. What about Assange? Have you weighed in opposition to the Wikileaks guy?

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Well tell your son not to be a hero

by the way, you do not know this, they filed a permit to assemble, it was denied.

And this is close to screaming fire in a theater.

Oh and nobody said stop them... or saying that they don't have the right to do this.

Just that if somebody is killed abroad and it can be tied to this act... well they SHOULD be sued in Civil Court...

Actions, consequences and all that.

I am not sure you would even see that as possible or pertinent.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

32. It's not a fine line, it's a massive overlap.

There is a great deal that is both "acceptable as free speech" and "hate speech and intolerance" - Terry Jones is a classic example.

"Hate Speech" is a silly and potentially dangerous term, I think - it can very easily be used to imply that what someone you are disagreeing with is outside the limits of free speech without actually giving a good reason why.

[beyurslf]

24. For those who think he should not be allowed to burn the Quran because it is hate speech,

would you feel the same about burning a flag or the bible? I say put the Quran in the center, and use the pages from the bible as kindling.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. I've only seen one person say he shouldn't be allowed.

And that was one butthurt dipshit that got shouted out of the thread.

Your argument is primarily a strawman.

[pipoman]

29. Posts 18 and 21 above seem to believe the hate speech nonsense..

[hyphenate]

46. The right to burn a flag was established

many years ago, so no, I wouldn't care if someone burned one. In fact, burning a flag is considered the best way of disposing of a flag legally and with dignity.

As far as whether it is the bible, the Quran, the Kabbalah, the book of Mormon, the Bagavad Gita, or any other holy text doesn't matter to me--I'm an atheist. I do, however, try to respect the people who do believe in their religious writings, except for those who choose to twist those writings to justify heinous crimes. Diversity shouldn't mean one group should try to wipe out another religious group, but learn about another group, and learn to celebrate that diversity.

People have burned books of one sort or another for a very long time. It's not the book that drives this particular debacle, but the attitude that all Muslims are evil.

[gulliver]

33. I wish Obama would hurry and condemn this.

All Dems should join General Petraeus and condemn it.

[Speck Tater]

35. Free speech is a bitch, ain't it?

But this is the kind of thing one has to not only tolerate, but allow if one is to support free speech and freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion.

If I had my way, all religious books would be burned. But if I had my way then this would not, by definition, be a democracy any more. It would be my own personal dictatorship. Since nobody wants that, myself included, I guess we have no choice but to either be complete hypocrites where freedom of speech is concerned, or else support this man's right to do what ever damn fool act of defiance he deems suitable.

[Lucian]

37. Would you think I was looney if I wanted to burn all religious books?

Because I want to. I don't think religion serves any practical purpose in the world today.

But I wouldn't burn them because I hate a certain culture, like the idiots in Florida.

[Codeine]

40. Nobody will die because a Quran is burned.

Somebody may die because a ignorant, backwards whackadoodle decides to use it as an excuse to kill someone, but that's just what it is -- an EXCUSE. It's a pathetic, cheapshit justification for murder, and you're all buying into the notion that somehow that sort of dumbfuckery is caused by, should be blamed on, the destruction of an inanimate object.

[pipoman]

42. It is shocking how many hereabouts

are ready to lynch this idiot for the desire to express his right to say anything either verbally or through the long tradition of USAmericans of demonstration, not withstanding those things which are already stated as limitations. And the number hereabouts who support Assange, even in the face of his revelations causing physical harm to US interests..sometimes truth is stranger than fiction..

[TexasObserver]

43. It's ridiculous to burn them, and it's ridiculous to get mad about it.

There's no sanity on either side of those overreactions.

They're books - paper that belongs to someone else. What the books say is immaterial. They're property, and whoever owns them can destroy them.