(CNN) -- In less than a month, Pastor Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida plans to host "Burn a Quran Day" to mark the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
The pastor, author of the book "Islam is of the Devil," is using the burning to urge American Christians to "stand up" to what he describes as a monolithic Muslim threat.
. . .
At a recent dinner in Washington, a host for one of Pakistan's top TV channels confided in me that he "didn't dare" report the story because if he did, "not a single American would be safe in Pakistan." He and the cameraman were quivering with anger as they asked me to explain why Americans hated Islam.
I tried my best to explain this was not the case, but Jones' burning will have great symbolic significance to a Muslim world already feeling under attack by the United States. It will cause undue harm to U.S. relations with the Muslim world and particularly the war effort.
Questions for debate:
Is this action by Pastor Jones un-Christian?
Is this action dangerous, perhaps even treasonous in its effect?
Should Americans be killed as a result of this action, should it not be cancelled, would Pastor Jones share any responsibility for it?
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Well, you didn't respond to my last post, and you post this short statement snidely telling me to have a nice day.
cnorman18 wrote:See my last post. If you're going to misstate my position, we have nothing to talk about. Have a nice day.
cnorman18 wrote:Please explain to me why invoking the First Amendment means that I "oppose free speech." That's obviously nonsense.
I oppose the mosque at ground zero. You then told me that I oppose America's founding principles.
You oppose the Koran Burning. I then told you that you oppose America's founding principles.
cnorman18 wrote:Further, I DO believe that burning Korans, and the flag for that matter, ARE protected by the First Amendment. I never said those acts should be legally prohibited nor prevented. I also think it's a matter of exercising MY free speech to say that burning Korans is stupid, dangerous, intentionally offensive, and profoundly unChristian.
So the issue is why is it ok for you to tell me that I'm opposed to free speech, but it's not ok for me to tell you that you're opposed to free speech.
cnorman18 wrote:Opposing the mosque, on the other hand, while also a matter of protected free speech, is based on the false assumption that Islam, and Muslims in general, are to blame for 9/11, which is an egregious falsehood.
Nobody here is claiming that Muslims in general are responsible for 9/11. I am saying that if I am a "free speech opposer" because I oppose the legally/constitutionally valid mosque, then you and all other Koran Burning supporters are equally "free speech opposers" because you are opposing something legally and constitutionally valid. It is applying a fair and objective standard to issues regardless of one's personal biases.
East of Eden wrote:
Thanks, but I would like you to first answer my question of whether free speech should be curtailed because of threats of violence.
As I said in the beginning, it is a Constitutional right of Americans to say stupid things. When those stupid things result in damage or loss of life, the only remedy, unfortunately, is civil law; but that can only apply after the fact.
No, free speech should not be curtailed, and I don't think anyone here has proposed that. But I think it is also a matter of free speech to loudly and publicly condemn stupid, dangerous acts as just that, and to speak up and say so when someone betrays his own professed faith with acts that are as far from the example of Jesus as is imaginable, next to outright murder. It shouldn't be Muslims condemning Jones's bigotry and hatred; that job rightly belongs to Christians, and there are those who are doing just that. Bravo to them.
Jones is about as Christian, and his acts about as representative of authentic Christianity, as the hooded thugs of the Ku Klux Klan. Let such contemptible, bigoted savages speak freely. Let them show what FALSE Christianity, used to cover and justify an agenda of hatred and bigotry, looks like.
And let those whose lives he damages, directly or indirectly, by his egregious idiocy and hatred, line up to take him to court and keep him in expensive litigation for the rest of his life. Let him preach to his fellow bigots, but let him do it in rags from under a bridge. It's what he deserves.
You're certainly not short of names to call people. Is it bigoted and hateful to believe another religion to be wrong?
No, but it IS bigoted to spit on it and defame it in public, e.g. by burning its books as a public statement of contempt and by making false claims about its teachings.
You're entitled to your opinion. I think it is hateful and bigoted for the Iman to proceed with a mosque in a sensitive area despite overwhelming public opposition. So much for Muslim assimilation.
If you think I'm posting insults and namecalling, feel free to report my post. And good luck with that.
Forum rules apply to what we call each other, not Pastor Jones or Iman Rauf.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE
Have at it, but realize some folks are gonna be put out with you. I won't be doing it simply because it is more effort than I'm willing to extend at this time - and not because some religious zealot may find his panties in a bunch.
I reject notions of bigotry for burning another's sacred texts, on the grounds of free speech and free expression being there for all - lover, hater, intellectual or idiot. If it's bigoted to display my displeasure by a symbolic act of burning the cause of that displeasure, then the one's who are displeased with my act can find a copy of any book I like and do some burning of their own. I'll even offer 'em some matches.
I agree that burning a copy of the Koran is liable to incite some to violence, but really, what doesn't incite these folks? Are we to tape our mouths shut and not express our displeasure? Who is so high falootin' they have the right, nay, the authority to tell me how to express myself?
I also object to the notion that such burning will cause increased problems for our military, as if that is the sole source of problems. I have far, far more respect for those soldiers who defend our values - with their lives - than to try to appease an enemy simply because an act causes that enemy discomfort. To hell with the enemy, to hell with his values, and to hell with his getting upset because someone printed a freakin' cartoon or burned a book.
I wipe my fourth point of contact with the Koran, and pretty much any religious text I'm aware of. Yes, that is meant to insult all religions, as a display of my displeasure with these texts, as well as an example of free speech. If speech is what you fear, hide your head in the sand or put peanut butter in your ears. Your comfort is not my responsibility.
Religious texts I'm aware of are full of hatred and vitriol for any folks who disagree with those texts, and some folks somehow think it's insulting to burn such? How discombobulated must one's mind be to think holding up hateful texts as "holy" or worthy of respect is admirable? Does anyone carry on when we burn copies of Mein Kampf? Who carries on when it's a porno magazine being burned?
No, it is the whole "my god'll get mad if you burn my book" crowd that is so ready to burn effigies of my "sacred" stuff, but would harm me for doing it to theirs.
The Koran is feces smeared on toilet paper. How's that for insulting? Am I now the bad guy, or is the bad guy the one who seeks to silence me? Notice here, I don't even have to believe the statement, just the uttering opens me to potential beheading or worse by some extremists within Islamic ranks. I fart in the general direction of such folks.
Those who seek to silence free speech and free expression are the ones we need to worry about.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
Have at it, but realize some folks are gonna be put out with you. I won't be doing it simply because it is more effort than I'm willing to extend at this time - and not because some religious zealot may find his panties in a bunch.
I reject notions of bigotry for burning another's sacred texts, on the grounds of free speech and free expression being there for all - lover, hater, intellectual or idiot. If it's bigoted to display my displeasure by a symbolic act of burning the cause of that displeasure, then the one's who are displeased with my act can find a copy of any book I like and do some burning of their own. I'll even offer 'em some matches.
I agree that burning a copy of the Koran is liable to incite some to violence, but really, what doesn't incite these folks? Are we to tape our mouths shut and not express our displeasure? Who is so high falootin' they have the right, nay, the authority to tell me how to express myself?
Exactly. The Religion of the Perpetually Outraged certainly has a low trigger point. I reject the notion that freedom of speech should be curtailed because of threats from these thugs.
I also object to the notion that such burning will cause increased problems for our military, as if that is the sole source of problems. I have far, far more respect for those soldiers who defend our values - with their lives - than to try to appease an enemy simply because an act causes that enemy discomfort. To hell with the enemy, to hell with his values, and to hell with his getting upset because someone printed a freakin' cartoon or burned a book.
I wipe my fourth point of contact with the Koran, and pretty much any religious text I'm aware of. Yes, that is meant to insult all religions, as a display of my displeasure with these texts, as well as an example of free speech. If speech is what you fear, hide your head in the sand or put peanut butter in your ears. Your comfort is not my responsibility.
Religious texts I'm aware of are full of hatred and vitriol for any folks who disagree with those texts, and some folks somehow think it's insulting to burn such? How discombobulated must one's mind be to think holding up hateful texts as "holy" or worthy of respect is admirable? Does anyone carry on when we burn copies of Mein Kampf? Who carries on when it's a porno magazine being burned?
No, it is the whole "my god'll get mad if you burn my book" crowd that is so ready to burn effigies of my "sacred" stuff, but would harm me for doing it to theirs.
The Koran is feces smeared on toilet paper. How's that for insulting? Am I now the bad guy, or is the bad guy the one who seeks to silence me? Notice here, I don't even have to believe the statement, just the uttering opens me to potential beheading or worse by some extremists within Islamic ranks. I fart in the general direction of such folks.
Those who seek to silence free speech and free expression are the ones we need to worry about.
Joey, if any crazed Muslim threatens you because of the above post, I've got your back with my AR-15.
Some of them need lead therapy.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE
Burning one alone, by yourself -- is not only a stupid waste of time, but it is immature -- it shows just how ignorant the person is. Why burn what you do not understand?
Burning a Koran for the world to see -- even threatening to do it -- it's downright hateful.
It is bordering on immoral to compare Pastor Jones with Imam Rauf -- and the Koran Burning with the construction of the mosque as equally offensive and equally radical.
Imam Rauf has devoted his life to teaching his moderate Islamic views -- he has helped the FBI -- made countless lectures... and done a lot to promote peace.
Pastor Jones, on the other hand, formerly led a church in Germany. He criticized his followers of questioning God whenever they questioned his teachings.
Pastor Jones believes Islam is evil and moderates only exist if they aren't devout.
How, HOW is burning a book out of hate and ignorance - ON ANY LEVEL COMPARABLE - to building a community center dedicated on improving Muslim/American relations?
It is only offensive if you believe that the community center is a terrorist command center built to celebrate American deaths, and that the imam is radical and that all Muslims are prone to becoming terrorists because their faith demands violence.
That's the only possible way anyone can justify the comparison.
Rhonan wrote:Burning a Koran is intentionally hateful.
You and I may think so, but the intention of Pastor Jones is to send a clear cut message to Radical Muslims.
Same as the "intention" of Imam Rauf which is to build unity. You and the minority of Americans may think this is a "unifying" project, just like the minority of Americans think that the Koran Burning is helpful for this country. But mainstream Americans who apply fair standards to issues see through the smoke and spin on both these issues.
Rhonan wrote:Burning one alone, by yourself -- is not only a stupid waste of time, but it is immature -- it shows just how ignorant the person is. Why burn what you do not understand?
Do you support Flag Burning. Yes or No?
Rhonan wrote:Burning a Koran for the world to see -- even threatening to do it -- it's downright hateful.
Yes, so is burning a flag. BUT many on the Liberal side see flag burning as an unalienable constitutional right granted by the first amendment, yet many on the liberal side oppose the burning of a Koran.
Do many on the liberal side see a Koran as having more importance than the American Flag?
Rhonan wrote:It is bordering on immoral to compare Pastor Jones with Imam Rauf -- and the Koran Burning with the construction of the mosque as equally offensive and equally radical.
Yes, it is rather immoral to compare the Honorable Pastor to the Radical, Dishoenst, Threatening, Hateful Imam. The Pastor has backed off of his burning of Korans, the Imam says ONE ROTTEN THING AFTER ANOTHER and is not held accountable for them.
Rhonan wrote:Imam Rauf has devoted his life to teaching his moderate Islamic views -- he has helped the FBI -- made countless lectures... and done a lot to promote peace.
Very good for Imam Rauf. His entire so called life's career of peace promotion has been shown INGENUINE because of this proposed Islamic Worship Center at the gravesite of an Islamic Suicide bombing.
Rhonan wrote:Pastor Jones, on the other hand, formerly led a church in Germany. He criticized his followers of questioning God whenever they questioned his teachings.
Pastor Jones believes Islam is evil and moderates only exist if they aren't devout.
Yes, he's a vile person. BUT he has the honor to BACK OFF of his burning. He is BETTER than Rauf.
Rhonan wrote:How, HOW is burning a book out of hate and ignorance - ON ANY LEVEL COMPARABLE - to building a community center dedicated on improving Muslim/American relations?
I don't care what these two atrocities are "dedicated" to. The "intent" and "dedication" of the Koran burning is something I support, I support telling Radical Muslims that they aren't above defamation and ridicule. However, I think it would be more prudent to go about it a different way.
I also support building unity between Muslims and Americans, which is the "intent" of this mosque. I think that there are BETTER ways to go about doing this though, as do 70% of the American people.
Rhonan wrote:Burning a Koran is intentionally hateful.
You and I may think so, but the intention of Pastor Jones is to send a clear cut message to Radical Muslims.
Burning a pile of Qur'ans might anger radicals - but at the same time it offends billions of Muslims world-wide.
To put this into a meaningful context us Christians would understand... it would be like if Richard Dawkins and a few of his buddies decided to burn a pile of Bibles whilst reading ancient laws from Leviticus(stone children, etc.) in order to send a message to Westboro Baptist Church. But it would end up ticking a bunch of Christians off -- some of which (Pat Robertson, etc.) might use that as an example to reinforce the narrative that America has fallen away from God and will be judged (by more Katrinas and 9/11s, as Robertson believes).
That's a simple analogy, but the fact is, burning a Qur'an (whatever the intention no matter how illogical or stupid) will always be received by Muslims and other people as hateful and offensive. When someone burns a book that contains the values of your life and the very words of God -- it is a sign that the burner hates your beliefs and ultimately hates you.
I'm not a Muslim, but it isn't hard for me to be able to comprehend why they would be upset -- and since many Muslim countries around the world don't have a history of democracy and free speech as we do(which we inherited from European England) -- I can understand why many might protest and be angry. It feeds the narrative that America is anti-Islam.
When someone from another country, like Afghanistan, sees an American who wants to burn Bibles, they might feel like "most Americans are like that," especially when their country is occupied by American soldiers -- and the skirmishes between American troops and terrorists might damage villages and kill family members -- it really is just insult to a growing animosity that a number Afghani civilians have towards the U.S.
Likewise, when Americans hear the news about a suicide bomber here, or another bomber there -- or when they see middle eastern people burning American flags -- they might think to themselves that "all Muslims are like that." So when they hear about a mosque being built in their communities, they can't help but feel the need to protest against it.
I'm not saying either is okay or justified. I'm simply putting things into context. Think of me as the Devil's Advocate -- actually I don't like that title but... you get my point.
WinePusher wrote:Same as the "intention" of Imam Rauf which is to build unity. You and the minority of Americans may think this is a "unifying" project, just like the minority of Americans think that the Koran Burning is helpful for this country. But mainstream Americans who apply fair standards to issues see through the smoke and spin on both these issues.
(1). I'm in a minority in that I'm a moderate and I tend to say things that annoy both sides. Mainstream doesn't matter to me - because the majority of any group has always used this to justify their positions no matter how morally unjustifiable they actually are.
I do believe that Imam Rauf's original intent was to build a place of worship that was also a community center and an interfaith center. His dream was to make it unifying and to serve the Muslim community's needs as well as help non-Muslims learn about the religion. He said himself that he had this plan before 9/11.
I don't believe that it can be as effective now as he had hoped; the issue was politicized in may. It was announced it in 2009 and everyone thought it was fine. It only became an issue when Pam Geller put an unfair spin on it. I highly advise you to watch the original segment on FOX:
Here is a brief timeline:
War Room wrote:
Here's a timeline of how it all happened:
* Dec. 8, 2009: The Times publishes a lengthy front-page look at the Cordoba project. "We want to push back against the extremists," Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the lead organizer, is quoted as saying. Two Jewish leaders and two city officials, including the mayor's office, say they support the idea, as does the mother of a man killed on 9/11. An FBI spokesman says the imam has worked with the bureau. Besides a few third-tier right-wing blogs, including Pamela Geller's Atlas Shrugs site, no one much notices the Times story.
* Dec. 21, 2009: Conservative media personality Laura Ingraham interviews Abdul Rauf's wife, Daisy Khan, while guest-hosting "The O'Reilly Factor" on Fox. In hindsight, the segment is remarkable for its cordiality. "I can't find many people who really have a problem with it," Ingraham says of the Cordoba project, adding at the end of the interview, "I like what you're trying to do."
[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]
(This segment also includes onscreen the first use that we've seen of the misnomer "ground zero mosque.") After the segment — and despite the front-page Times story — there were no news articles on the mosque for five and a half months, according to a search of the Nexis newspaper archive.
* May 6, 2010: After a unanimous vote by a New York City community board committee to approve the project, the AP runs a story. It quotes relatives of 9/11 victims (called by the reporter), who offer differing opinions. The New York Post, meanwhile, runs a story under the inaccurate headline, "Panel Approves 'WTC' Mosque." Geller is less subtle, titling her post that day, "Monster Mosque Pushes Ahead in Shadow of World Trade Center Islamic Death and Destruction." She writes on her Atlas Shrugs blog, "This is Islamic domination and expansionism. The location is no accident. Just as Al-Aqsa was built on top of the Temple in Jerusalem." (To get an idea of where Geller is coming from, she once suggested that Malcolm X was Obama's real father. Seriously.)
* May 7, 2010: Geller's group, Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), launches "Campaign Offensive: Stop the 911 Mosque!" (SIOA 's associate director is Robert Spencer, who makes his living writing and speaking about the evils of Islam.) Geller posts the names and contact information for the mayor and members of the community board, encouraging people to write. The board chair later reports getting "hundreds and hundreds" of calls and e-mails from around the world.
* May 8, 2010: Geller announces SIOA's first protest against what she calls the "911 monster mosque" for May 29. She and Spencer and several other members of the professional anti-Islam industry will attend. (She also says that the protest will mark the dark day of "May 29, 1453, [when] the Ottoman forces led by the Sultan Mehmet II broke through the Byzantine defenses against the Muslim siege of Constantinople." The outrage-peddling New York Post columnist Andrea Peyser argues in a note at the end of her column a couple of days later that "there are better places to put a mosque."
* May 13, 2010: Peyser follows up with an entire column devoted to "Mosque Madness at Ground Zero." This is a significant moment in the development of the "ground zero mosque" narrative: It's the first newspaper article that frames the project as inherently wrong and suspect, in the way that Geller has been framing it for months. Peyser in fact quotes Geller at length and promotes the anti-mosque protest of Stop Islamization of America, which Peyser describes as a "human-rights group." Peyser also reports — falsely — that Cordoba House's opening date will be Sept. 11, 2011.
Lots of opinion makers on the right read the Post, so it's not surprising that, starting that very day, the mosque story spread through the conservative — and then mainstream — media like fire through dry grass. Geller appeared on Sean Hannity's radio show. The Washington Examiner ran an outraged column about honoring the 9/11 dead. So did Investor's Business Daily. Smelling blood, the Post assigned news reporters to cover the ins and outs of the Cordoba House development daily. Fox News, the Post's television sibling, went all out.
Within a month, Rudy Giuliani had called the mosque a "desecration." Within another month, Sarah Palin had tweeted her famous "peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate" tweet. Peter King and Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty followed suit — with political reporters and television news programs dutifully covering "both sides" of the controversy.
Rhonan wrote:Burning one alone, by yourself -- is not only a stupid waste of time, but it is immature -- it shows just how ignorant the person is. Why burn what you do not understand?
Do you support Flag Burning. Yes or No?
It technically counts as free speech. People have the right to do it.
I don't think it is as offensive as burning Bibles or Qur'ans, but I still find it distasteful.
A lot of people burn the flag in protest to what the government does. This is commonplace in other countries around the world(whether is their flag or ours).
I think there is a better way to protest -- in fact I don't like protesting at all. Debates and voting is a better way to get your message across if you don't like what the government is doing. Flag burning is immature and dumb in my opinion.
WinePusher wrote:
Rhonan wrote:Burning a Koran for the world to see -- even threatening to do it -- it's downright hateful.
Yes, so is burning a flag. BUT many on the Liberal side see flag burning as an unalienable constitutional right granted by the first amendment, yet many on the liberal side oppose the burning of a Koran.
Do many on the liberal side see a Koran as having more importance than the American Flag?
I don't think burning a nation's flag is as hateful as burning the word of God(or Allah, whichever you prefer).
I do think that the act of doing it, when it comes from other nations, is symbolic of hating America. When it occurs in the U.S., it's probably more of a protest against America's policies. But I rarely hear that happen in America, so I wouldn't know for sure.
I can see how burning the flag would offend Americans -- if I saw it happen, I'd just laugh and think the person doing it was stupid. I wouldn't be personally offended or angered in any way.
I love my country, but my patriotism in no way means that I approve of everything it does - or the laws it enacts (Marriage Defense act) (DADT) etc.
My patriotism, however, is not at the level where I think flag burning should be banned. IMHO, I think people should have the right to do it. But that doesn't mean I like it when people do it -- I don't.
=====
WinePusher wrote:
Rhonan wrote:It is bordering on immoral to compare Pastor Jones with Imam Rauf -- and the Koran Burning with the construction of the mosque as equally offensive and equally radical.
Yes, it is rather immoral to compare the Honorable Pastor to the Radical, Dishoenst, Threatening, Hateful Imam. The Pastor has backed off of his burning of Korans, the Imam says ONE ROTTEN THING AFTER ANOTHER and is not held accountable for them.
(1.) I think calling Pastor Jones "Honorable" is a bit extreme.
I did not expect you to say something like that. I am glad that he finally decided not to do it, but he could have said "them Muslims lied to me. You can't trust 'em! I will burn a million of them Corhans."
For that, I will give him credit -- but I will not bestow honor upon him for wanting to burn Qur'ans out of hatred, and then forcibly inserting himself into the Cordoba Center issue. I felt like he was holding America hostage -- not only by becoming a major force in the opposition -- but by shaping America's image around the world.
(2.) Apparently, you did not see the interview he had with CNNs Soleda O'Brien. I will admit, I had doubts about the man when originally arguing about his previous comments. I knew that it was insensitive to say Osama was made in America, even though I understood the factual truth of what he was saying(We did indeed fund the Taliban against Russia, and our foreign policy in Afghanistan did encourage Osama to act -- as he himself stated. Ron Paul and many other Americans agree that our actions in the Middle East has encouraged terrorism and has been used by terrorists as recruiting tools)
He did acknowledge that that shouldn't have been phrased the way it was. He also said that if he had known how divisive this would be, he never would have built it. But he also suggested that there might be another way out -- but he wasn't sure which way would be best, so that it wouldn't look like he was forced out of his rights to have it built -- which would no doubt help terrorist recruitment as he explained (reiterating what General Petraeus said about Burning Korans).
[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]
I listened to him, and I believed he was a very genuine man. I do not think he is a radical whatsoever. I actually feel sorry for him because I would not want to be in his position. He has been unfairly demonized and his previous comments have been warped and distorted. I don't have a solution for him. I do not know what would be best for him to do. I know a lot of people want it to be built in Mecca; if he is forced to build 5, 10, 15, 20 blocks away -- what does that say about our values? In this case, I care more about American freedoms and rights than about what the world thinks.
But at the same time, I realize that if this is built -- people won't see it as a community center, they will see it as an Islamic victory stomping on graves -- no matter how inaccurate their position is.
I've been praying about it. I hope something good can come of this situation; but for now, given the fact that Geert Wilders and others have recently become leaders of the opposition (he addressed a major anti-mosque rally today 9/11/10) -- I just can't join that side. For now, I am sticking with their right to build it there. Many Americans may not like it -- but the reasons for not liking it is because some Americans find it offensive that Islam has a presence in America -- because on some level, a number of them blame the religion for what happened on that day. And the association in their minds makes any place near ground zero off limit for Muslims.
(3.) As for my views about the Dutchman Geert Wilders. Let's just say he's the equivalent of Julian Assange. Both aren't Americans -- both have an agenda... both use graphic material to promote their respective agendas.
One is anti Muslim and anti Islam -- another is anti American.
Here is his speech he made on that day. It is not as vile as some of his other speeches he has made in the past, but feel free to watch it.
[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]
He thinks the mosque would turn New York into Mecca... and that tolerance is not suicidal and that we must not grant tolerance to these people because they will demand sharia upon us from the center. He claims the West never harmed Islam -- I suppose he forgot the crusades -- and in 1492 when Catholic Spain forced Muslims and Jews out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Moriscos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhambra_Decree
He must be on another planet to be thinking what he was thinking. He compared America to Saudi Arabia over and over "Why should we show tolerance to Muslims when Saudi Arabia doesn't show tolerance for non-Muslims?" WHY should WE act like Saudi Arabia at all????
He gave a bs number about the amount of Muslims that felt 9/11 was justified in his own country... and he said the Muslims who would go to the mosque would feel the same way.
To think people are applauding him makes me want to vomit.
He should learn the meaning of the quote he used from Abraham Lincoln -- which he perversely twisted to imply Islam and Muslims everywhere are against freedom and tolerance and that we should not tolerate them.
Rhonan wrote:Imam Rauf has devoted his life to teaching his moderate Islamic views -- he has helped the FBI -- made countless lectures... and done a lot to promote peace.
Very good for Imam Rauf. His entire so called life's career of peace promotion has been shown INGENUINE because of this proposed Islamic Worship Center at the gravesite of an Islamic Suicide bombing.
(1.) I think that's a bit harsh, to say he destroyed his career by intending to make something he thought would be unifying.
(2.) It wasn't an Islamic Suicide bombing. It was a terrorist act committed by radical Islamists -- radicals who have a completely different ideology than Imam Rauf's -- an ideology that calls for murder and promises sex in heaven with 72 virgins as reward(that cannot be found in the Qur'an).
If I believed Imam's faith and the terrorists' faith were one and the same, I'd also oppose the mosque with every ounce of my energy. But I realized that the terrorists are just about as Muslim as the Hutaree are Christian.
I am not running around protesting the building of Catholic Churches near schools because of the pedophilia committed by "Christian" priests. I cannot in any way associate those people with Catholics. So when they want to build wherever they want, I don't assume they harbor a priest who wants to harm kids. That is an unfair stereotype. But it's a perfect analogy.
(3.) It's not on a gravesite. It isn't at ground zero. It's two blocks from ground zero. How come it isn't offensive to build anything else at ground zero? What about when they build new strip clubs and subways? I can't believe any American would want to eat lunch, or watch strippers on a grave site -- can you?
=====
WinePusher wrote:
Rhonan wrote:Pastor Jones, on the other hand, formerly led a church in Germany. He criticized his followers of questioning God whenever they questioned his teachings.
Pastor Jones believes Islam is evil and moderates only exist if they aren't devout.
Yes, he's a vile person. BUT he has the honor to BACK OFF of his burning. He is BETTER than Rauf.
(1.) I don't think he wanted to back off... I think he caved under pressure. Everyone from Sarah Palin to the President to the FBI asked him not to. If he was directly putting lives at risk, then as a human being, I felt he had no choice. That hardly deserves the title of "honorable."
(2.) Imam Rauf's situation is a bit more difficult. He's between a rock and a hard place; either he decides to build elsewhere -- making it look like Americans denied him rights to build -- making it look like Americans don't want Muslims within 5 blocks of the site. -- which helps radical terrorists around the world to point and say "see, America is the enemy of Islam. Join us and fight them!"
Or, he can choose to build there -- endanger his congregation (yes, some Americans would no doubt try to burn the place down or harm some of the members there) And the Cordoba House will be falsely viewed by many Americans as a monument to death and a factory for suicide bombers -- which is self-defeating to the purpose of the center.
All Pastor Jones had to decide was. Should I be a total ++++ and endanger the lives of American soldiers and tourists around the world by committing this stupid and hateful act, or should I just go back to my congregation and be quiet?
Comparing the two at that level is hardly fair on any level. It's like saying: Ahmadinejad is vile person, but he has more honor than President Obama, because Mahmoud knows how to stand up against the EU and UN. Ahmadinejad is BETTER than Obama.
=====
WinePusher wrote:
Rhonan wrote:How, HOW is burning a book out of hate and ignorance - ON ANY LEVEL COMPARABLE - to building a community center dedicated on improving Muslim/American relations?
I don't care what these two atrocities are "dedicated" to. The "intent" and "dedication" of the Koran burning is something I support, I support telling Radical Muslims that they aren't above defamation and ridicule. However, I think it would be more prudent to go about it a different way.
I also support building unity between Muslims and Americans, which is the "intent" of this mosque. I think that there are BETTER ways to go about doing this though, as do 70% of the American people.
(1.)One way to support building unity between Muslims and Americans is to not want to burn their holy book and expect them to applaud your right to do it.
* Also, Pastor Jones wasn't going to burn the books to stick it to the radicals -- he was burning the books to send a message to Muslims (they aren't welcome here - their religion is of the devil). He thought somehow that burning the Qur'an would make Muslims have a change of heart and want to ask Jesus to save them. Idiotic, yes, but he believed that.
Paul didn't take a sledge hammer to Zeus when preaching the gospel to the Greeks. He praised them for their religious piety.
Acts 17:22-24 wrote:Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.
Pastor Jones was trying to win people to his version of Christianity -- unfortunately he failed because he believed Islam was evil and that Muslims are terrorists.
(2.) Care to enlighten us on the many ways in which Muslims can reach out to Americans and promote peace? It's kind of hard for anyone Muslim to do that now, with Americans protesting their mosques around the country - and questioning them for what they believe... thinking they worship a "monkey god" as Tea Party leader Mark Williams said.
There are so many Americans out there who genuinely fear Muslims and Islam -- some of which are my own family members. I can't have a copy of the Qur'an in my house because some of my family members feel it is satanic and it's got demons in it. They were afraid for my life what would happen to me when I visited a mosque near my college (as per requirement for my religions class - I went with my whole class to observe a service)
Somehow I think that of those 70% of Americans you keep referencing, that there are a lot of them that think and feel the same way.
The only reason I don't too is because I actually learned about the religion in college -- studied its history as well as Islamic terrorism among other things. Of course, you don't have to take a few religions classes to have tolerance. Anyone can do research on the internet. All it takes is an open mind and common sense.
(3.) I think that actually participating in protests against the mosque, amongst all the signs that are down right Islamophobic -- listening to the filth of Geert Wilders as he instills fear into the hearts of Americans -- Muslims are coming here with the intent to dominate us all, etc. And protesting on 9/11 -- to politicize what happened and use the tragedy to promote hatred for Muslims and opposition to mosques around the nation...
I think that, is not a good way to reconcile the Muslim American community with the rest of us.
It only generates more hatred for Muslims and opposition to the mosque if and when it is built. It's not making the situation better.
(4.)I don't know what will happen. I don't have a proper solution. All I can do is pray about it.
Rhonan wrote:
Burning a Koran is intentionally hateful.
And lopping off folks' body parts because the Koran says to ain't?
Rhonan wrote:
Burning one alone, by yourself -- is not only a stupid waste of time, but it is immature -- it shows just how ignorant the person is.
I'd caution against calling something "stupid" or "immature", lest I expose own lack or possession thereof.
Rhonan wrote:
Why burn what you do not understand?
Why call something you don't understand "stupid" or "immature"? It's called freedom of expression / freedom of speech.
Rhonan wrote:
Burning a Koran for the world to see -- even threatening to do it -- it's downright hateful.
Others consider it a form of speech. Freedom of speech is for all, or it is "privilege of speech".
Rhonan wrote:
It is bordering on immoral to compare Pastor Jones with Imam Rauf -- and the Koran Burning with the construction of the mosque as equally offensive and equally radical.
Considering such are relative notions, all you can really present is your opinion as to why they are or are not similar.
Rhonan wrote:
Imam Rauf has devoted his life to teaching his moderate Islamic views -- he has helped the FBI -- made countless lectures... and done a lot to promote peace.
I consider the advancement of a religious / political force that ultimately threatens my freedom to be a serious assault on my freedom - regardless of whether their policies have been enacted.
Rhonan wrote:
Pastor Jones, on the other hand, formerly led a church in Germany. He criticized his followers of questioning God whenever they questioned his teachings.
Try questioning Islam in self-professed "Islamic" countries. They kill folks for rooting for the same god, but in the "wrong" way.
Rhonan wrote:
Pastor Jones believes Islam is evil and moderates only exist if they aren't devout.
I consider calling folks "stupid" or "immature" - especially when I don't agree with them - just as evil.
Rhonan wrote:
How, HOW is burning a book out of hate and ignorance - ON ANY LEVEL COMPARABLE - to building a community center dedicated on improving Muslim/American relations?
You call it "hate and ignorance", I call it "sending a message I want nothing to do with this drivel".
Rhonan wrote:
It is only offensive if you believe that the community center is a terrorist command center built to celebrate American deaths, and that the imam is radical and that all Muslims are prone to becoming terrorists because their faith demands violence.
Actually, I consider what I understand to be the design of the building offensive, but really don't care where they build it.
Rhonan wrote:
That's the only possible way anyone can justify the comparison.
Correction. That's the "only possible way" you can understand the comparison.
I see the increasing population of Muslims as a potential threat to my freedom. How to test it? Burn one of their holy books and see how they carry on. Their mosques, their dress, their speech, their actions and their holy book are all a part of that. I will fight against each and every part of a culture I oppose - through speech, action, and insult where necessary.
I don't buy into that whole "Islam is a religion of peace" angle because I have access to the news.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
Rhonan wrote:
Here is his speech he made on that day. It is not as vile as some of his other speeches he has made in the past, but feel free to watch it.
[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]
He thinks the mosque would turn New York into Mecca... and that tolerance is not suicidal and that we must not grant tolerance to these people because they will demand sharia upon us from the center. He claims the West never harmed Islam -- I suppose he forgot the crusades -- and in 1492 when Catholic Spain forced Muslims and Jews out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Moriscos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhambra_Decree
He said the West has never harmed Islam BEFORE Islam first harmed us. A case can be made that the Crusades were a legitimate counter-offensive against Muslim agression. What were they doing in Spain anyway?
He must be on another planet to be thinking what he was thinking. He compared America to Saudi Arabia over and over "Why should we show tolerance to Muslims when Saudi Arabia doesn't show tolerance for non-Muslims?" WHY should WE act like Saudi Arabia at all????
He made another great point when he said if Iman Rauf wants to build a center for tolerance and understanding he should do it where it is really needed - Saudi Arabia.
He gave a bs number about the amount of Muslims that felt 9/11 was justified in his own country... and he said the Muslims who would go to the mosque would feel the same way.
Amazing when he said 2/3 of Dutch Muslims at the time of 9/11 expressed full or partial understanding for the criminal perpetrators. That's what makes me want to vomit.
To think people are applauding him makes me want to vomit.
It gave me hope to see him applauded.
(3.) It's not on a gravesite. It isn't at ground zero. It's two blocks from ground zero.
Ground Zero is whatever was damaged in the 9/11 NYC attack. That building was severely damaged by airplane parts that day, to the point where it was vacant for a long time afterwards. Human remains were found 350 feet from it.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE
