Burn Koran Day

[micatala]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/20/a ... tml?hpt=C2


Some passages:

(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?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 70:

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.

Making no claims regarding who said what, I agree with the sentiment here.

Islamic countries are built on an Islamic culture - duh. The problem for me is that when I see Islamic countries / cultures, I see oppression, hatred, and all sorts of stuff I don't wish on my worst enemies.

If we are to assimilate Muslims into "our culture" - where we declare freedom of thought and speech trumps one's religious views - then we are somewhat compelled to offer an example of some of the most offensive and foul forms of speech - burning one's religious texts. We offer the example so "newcomers" are "shocked" into understanding "our" core values, and so they understand they are free to practice their religion as they see fit, but they are not free to use their "religious outrage" to silence others.

Burn the Koran?

Burn it and pee on the ashes.

I don't seek to inflame here, but to express the importance of free speech, free conscience, and freedom to offend. I offend religion as an expression of the offense it causes me.

I realize my views here are liable to have folks hating me. I accept their hating me, as I realize their religious texts hate me as well. And I hate their religious texts - for what the texts say, for what the texts have caused, and for those texts having folks lopping peoples heads off or stoning them to death over issues that should have been left alone centuries ago.

If one wants to declare their sacred texts above reproach, I propose those folks honor texts that are above reproach.

[East of Eden]

From Post 70:

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.

Making no claims regarding who said what, I agree with the sentiment here.

Islamic countries are built on an Islamic culture - duh. The problem for me is that when I see Islamic countries / cultures, I see oppression, hatred, and all sorts of stuff I don't wish on my worst enemies.

If we are to assimilate Muslims into "our culture" - where we declare freedom of thought and speech trumps one's religious views - then we are somewhat compelled to offer an example of some of the most offensive and foul forms of speech - burning one's religious texts. We offer the example so "newcomers" are "shocked" into understanding "our" core values, and so they understand they are free to practice their religion as they see fit, but they are not free to use their "religious outrage" to silence others.

Burn the Koran?

Burn it and pee on the ashes.

I don't seek to inflame here, but to express the importance of free speech, free conscience, and freedom to offend. I offend religion as an expression of the offense it causes me.

I realize my views here are liable to have folks hating me. I accept their hating me, as I realize their religious texts hate me as well. And I hate their religious texts - for what the texts say, for what the texts have caused, and for those texts having folks lopping peoples heads off or stoning them to death over issues that should have been left alone centuries ago.

If one wants to declare their sacred texts above reproach, I propose those folks honor texts that are above reproach.

This is the reason why as dumb as it is, Koran buning has value as a free-speech statement, one that says we will not change our way of life due to threats from Muslim thugs. The problem is many Muslims don't want to assimilate, they want to change American to be in line with their retrograde values.

[JoeyKnothead]

This is the reason why as dumb as it is, Koran buning has value as a free-speech statement, one that says we will not change our way of life due to threats from Muslim thugs. The problem is many Muslims don't want to assimilate, they want to change American to be in line with their retrograde values.

I don't support calling something "dumb" just because I may disagree with it. I personally consider it an intelligent act - in that it does not promote violence except to the violent, but displays one's displeasure.

My point is that if folks want to silence me, whether by raising a ruckus or threats of beheading and such, I'm gonna go out of my way to call 'em on it.

The issue, for me, goes beyond American values, but perhaps via American values. We, as a planet, must decide if we value free speech, free thought, and freedom in general, or do we prefer to cower at the feet of religious zealots.

If we honor those who have sacrificed and died for the principle that freedom is precious and dear, then by golly we shouldn't threaten someone over burning a book - or drawning a danged cartoon.

Dang all this "you're not sensitive to my religious beliefs, and so you need to quit carryin' on". Go cry to your god and let him comfort you. Your comfort is not my responsibility.

Then to be called bigots for the mere expression of an opinion is the height of hypocrisy. It is the bigot that seeks to oppress those not in his group - not the one acting against bigoted notions of religious superiority or sacredness.

Call me a bigot all you want, just make sure you explain to folks I'm a bigot against the oppressor!

[micatala]

This is the reason why as dumb as it is, Koran buning has value as a free-speech statement, one that says we will not change our way of life due to threats from Muslim thugs. The problem is many Muslims don't want to assimilate, they want to change American to be in line with their retrograde values.

I don't support calling something "dumb" just because I may disagree with it. I personally consider it an intelligent act - in that it does not promote violence except to the violent, but displays one's displeasure.

Sure, one could "interpret" the Koran burning as a statement against Muslims who promote and engage in violence.

But again, one could burn Bibles as a statement against the Fred Phelps of the world.

In both cases I am reminded of the old Monty Python skit where they went out hunting mosquitoes with a bazooka.

In both cases, you offend a lot of people not in the target audience.


I said this earlier, but I'll repeat. The issue is a practical one. Do you want to engage in such an action and have the nut jobs in the Muslim world start attacking innocent Christians or our troops?


If you throw fresh meat in the water next to a bunch of swimmers when there are sharks around, is that a smart thing to do?


Now, I sympathize with the notion that this holds us hostage in some sense to irrational elements. I am loathe to do this. However, the proposed action is rather pointless as the "alleged message" is not likely to get through to the intended audience (if that was his message). If his message is essentially "we hate Muslims" or "we hate Islam" then that message will certainly get through loud and clear as that is the message a lot of people will take away even if his intention were only to speak out against violencee.

If I could discern any positive intention or effect from this action I would feel differently about it. I certainly don't think we should change our behavior in general solely because some people might get upset and violent about it. However, to pointless make other people upset is, well, pointless.

My point is that if folks want to silence me, whether by raising a ruckus or threats of beheading and such, I'm gonna go out of my way to call 'em on it.

I'd agree if "calling them on it" had any real meaning or effect. Here, you might as well be talking to a brick wall, or a shark. IF the target audience is those in the Muslim community who are essentially deranged homicidal maniacs, sending them a message or "calling them" on their activities is pointless. It's like calling out a grizzly for empyting your fridge of all the goodies.

The issue, for me, goes beyond American values, but perhaps via American values. We, as a planet, must decide if we value free speech, free thought, and freedom in general, or do we prefer to cower at the feet of religious zealots.

We should not cower at the feet of religious zealots, I absolutley agree. I disagree that it is necessary to make a thousand times more people than the religious zealots angry in the process.

Is there not a cleverer or more productive way to make the point? You know, one that the guys in the armed forces won't have to pay for with their lives?

If we honor those who have sacrificed and died for the principle that freedom is precious and dear, then by golly we shouldn't threaten someone over burning a book - or drawning a danged cartoon.

Who is threatening Jones? I don't think he should be threatened. I think, as has been done, responsible adults should explain the facts of life to him. I am glad he listened.

Then to be called bigots for the mere expression of an opinion is the height of hypocrisy. It is the bigot that seeks to oppress those not in his group - not the one acting against bigoted notions of religious superiority or sacredness.

Call me a bigot all you want, just make sure you explain to folks I'm a bigot against the oppressor!

Being angry about Muslim radicals is not bigoted. Hating all Muslims because of what some of them do I think would be, although it is certainly understandable, especially for those who did lose people on 9/11. Thinking some religious people are too sensitive about their holy books is also not bigoted. The main bigotry I see here is only on the part of Jones and others who seem to think that all Muslims are "of the devil."

I would certainly not say that those who think it is just fine what he is doing on free speech grounds are bigots. Again, my only objections are:

1) It's possible effects
2) It seems to be based more on general hatred of all things Muslim than anything else.

[Darias]

Burning a Koran is intentionally hateful.

And lopping off folks' body parts because the Koran says to ain't?

Have you read a Qur'an? Some of it is inspired by Judaic Law -- at least it's easy to make parallels. The Qur'an doesn't have an old and new testament like the Bible. But it has it's good and, more extreme stuff just like any holy book.

A number of Muslims belief in the inerrancy of the Qur'an; but inerrancy of the scriptures and the inerrancy of interpretation are two very different things. The reference you gave is the result of a literal interpretation -- which might be called for by Wahhabist Muslims and more strict interpretations of Islam.

However, when the original verbiage is understood, the punishment which terrorists like Al-Queda practice, goes against the actual meaning.

Does the Quran Demand Thieves Have Their Hands Cut Off?

If non-Muslims "know" anything about Islam, they "know" that the Quran mandates a severe punishment for thieves: the cutting off of their hands. Here is Yusuf Ali's translation of the famous passage (5:38):

As to the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power.

. . . .

COMMENTARY ON 5:38

The Quran often uses words with more than one applicable and relevant meaning. This leads to verses that mean two, three, or more things at the same time, verses that make the translator's job exquisitely difficult.

We come now to such a verse. The verb form we translated as "mark, cut, or cut off" comes from a root verb -- QaTa'A – that occurs in the Quran many times. In almost all its occurrences in the Quran, this verb means "to sever a relationship" or "to end an act." Only in two instances (12:31 and 12:50) is this verb clearly used to describe a physical cutting; in another instance (69:46), the verb might possibly be interpreted in that way. A related form of this same verb -- one that implies repetition or severity of action -- occurs in the Quran seventeen times. This particular form is used to mean physically cutting off; or as a metaphor for the severing of a relationship: or to describe physically cutting or marking, but not cutting off

Thus, the verse recommending punishment for theft or burglary, in the context of the Quran and its terminology (and not the terminology or interpretation attributed to Muhammad or his followers) provides us with a single verb … but one that God has permitted to incorporate a range of possible penalties. For instance:

1. Cutting or marking the person's hands as a means of public humiliation and identification
2. Physically cutting off the person's hands.
3. (Or even:) Cutting off the person's means to steal and burglarize (presumably through rehabilitation or imprisonment)

The act of imposing any of these penalties, or any of their combinations, would of course depend on the facts of each case, the culpability and mental capacity of the accused, and the ability of the society as a whole to act in accordance with God's other instructions in the Quran. Note, for instance, that a Muslim society cannot punish a hungry person for stealing food, since letting a member of the society go hungry is a much bigger crime than the act of stealing food. Such a society actually demonstrates the characteristics of a society of unbelievers! (See 107:1-7; 89:17-20; and 90:6-20.) Considering theft solely as an individual crime, and advocating the severest possible interpretation of the Quran in rendering punishment, is neither fair nor consistent with the scripture.

_____
SOURCE: http://www.yuksel.org/e/books/rtq.htm

I personally do not support this practice, nor am I defending it. I am simply explaining that there are other ways to interpret the Qur'an. When I read my Bible, I don't follow Judaic Law -- I don't stone sinners or whatever. I, like many Muslims, understand historical context. Others, unfortunately don't in poor countries where access to education is lacking.

I do acknowledge that this is a problem, but I can promise you, none of my Muslim friends or colleges are running around with a dagger cutting peoples hands off -- to assume all Muslims want to do this is just a bit ignorant.

=====

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.

When I said this, I assumed that no one here gets their kicks by burning a religion's holy book in private, as if to say -- That'll teach all them stupid Muslims how much I hate them and their dessert stuff!

I'll stand by my original statement. Of course, that doesn't mean I'm calling anyone names. I'm just simply expressing the silliness of the matter.

=====

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.

I said this because I recall hearing that the Pastor had never actually read any of the Korans he had planned to burn.

My question was clearly rhetorical. When I ask "why do something?" "Because you can!" is not a sufficient enough reason.

Of course, you can burn a cross too - you can do a lot - but why? The act in and of itself is stupid. Stupid stunts are done because of ignorance/or kicks - and it almost always sends a hateful message.

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".

Sure, it technically falls under the right of Free Speech -- but then again so is burning a cross.

The recent buzzword: "wisdom" of doing it is what I'm getting at.

=====

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.

I've always backed up my opinions with sources; you picked up on a debate between me and WinePusher -- I was addressing some of his points in the post you replied to. If you want to see more about how I firmly believe it is completely and totally unfair to compare Pastor Jones and Imam Rauf, please read some of my posts in this thread -- where I actually quote Imam Rauf in context and debunk the myth that he is some sort of radical.

ref:Why Imam Rauf is not a Radical (pt. 1)

ref:Why Imam Rauf is not a Radical (pt. 2)

ref:Why Rauf and Jones are not comparable

=====

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.

You say that as if you think the government is promoting Wahhabist Sharia Law. To me it sounds like one of three things
*exaggeration
*sarcasm
*paranoia

And here's why I believe that. Here is an article that describes what he did for the FBI. It's hardly the conspiracy you are making it out to be.

In March 2003, federal officials were being criticized for disrespecting the rights of Arab-Americans in their efforts to crack down on domestic security threats in the post-9/11 environment. Hoping to calm the growing tempers, FBI officials in New York hosted a forum on ways to deal with Muslim and Arab-Americans without exacerbating social tensions. The bureau wanted to provide agents with "a clear picture," said Kevin Donovan, director of the FBI's New York office.

Brought in to speak that morning -- at the office building located just blocks from Ground Zero -- was one of the city's most respected Muslim voices: Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. The imam offered what was for him a familiar sermon to those in attendance. "Islamic extremism for the majority of Muslims is an oxymoron," he said. "It is a fundamental contradiction in terms."

It was, by contemporaneous news accounts, a successful lecture.

Flash forward six-and-a-half years, and Feisal Abdul Rauf occupies a far different place in the political consciousness. The imam behind a controversial proposal to build an Islamic cultural center near those same FBI offices has been called "a radical Muslim," a "militant Islamist" and, simply, the "enemy" by conservative critics. His Cordoba House project, meanwhile, has been framed as a conduit for Hamas to funnel money to domestic terrorist operations.

For those who actually know or have worked with the imam, the descriptions are frighteningly -- indeed, depressingly -- unhinged from reality. The Feisal Abdul Rauf they know, spent the past decade fighting against the very same cultural divisiveness and religious-based paranoia that currently surrounds him.

"Imam Feisal has participated at the Aspen Institute in Muslim-Christian-Jewish working groups looking at ways to promote greater religious tolerance," Walter Isaacson, head of The Aspen Institute told the Huffington Post. "He has consistently denounced radical Islam and terrorism, and promoted a moderate and tolerant Islam. Some of this work was done under the auspices of his own group, the Cordoba Initiative. I liked his book, and I participated in some of the meetings in 2004 or so. This is why I find it a shame that his good work is being undermined by this inflamed dispute. He is the type of leader we should be celebrating in America, not undermining."

A longtime Muslim presence in New York City, Feisal Abdul Rauf has been a participant in the geopolitical debate about Islamic-Western relations well before 9/11. In 1997, he founded the American Society for Muslim Advancement to promote a more positive integration of Muslims into American society. His efforts and profile rose dramatically after the attacks when, in need of a calm voice to explain why greater Islam was not a force bent on terrorism, he became a go-to quote for journalists on the beat.

"We have to be very much more vocal about protecting human rights and planting the seeds of democratic regimes throughout the Arab and Muslim world," he told Katie Couric, then with NBC, during an interview in October 2001.

Along the way, he rubbed elbows with or was embraced by a host of mainstream political figures, including several in the Republican Party. John Bennett, the man who preceded Isaacson as president of the Aspen Institute, was impressed enough by the imam's message that he became a co-founder of his Cordoba Initiative, which seeks to promote cross-cultural engagement through a variety of initiatives including, most recently, the center in downtown Manhattan.

In November 2004, Feisal Abdul Rauf participated in a lengthy discussion on religion and government with, among others, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. In May 2006, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright placed the imam among a host of luminaries who inspired her book, "The Mighty and the Almighty." As the New York Times reported at the time:

She mentioned Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, the two Democratic presidents in whose administrations she served; King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and King Abdullah II of Jordan; Vaclav Havel and Tony Blair. She organized discussions with Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, a conservative Catholic.

''The epitome of this,'' she said, was ''a totally fascinating, interesting discussion'' with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, a New York Sufi leader and author; Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; and Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Albright eventually collaborated with Feisal Abdul Rauf and others on more substantive political projects. In September 2008, the two, along with a number of other foreign policy heavyweights (including Richard Armitage and Dennis Ross) signed a report claiming that the war on terror had been inadequate in actually improving U.S. security. No less a figure than Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), the ranking minority member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, embraced the findings.

"The Project's report offers a thoughtful analysis of the current state of America's relations with the Muslim world and constructive recommendations on how we can approach this pressing concern in a bipartisan framework," said the senator.

Not that the imam has been without controversy. The most famous quote circulated by critics came when he talked to the Australian press in March 2004.

"The Islamic method of waging war is not to kill innocent civilians," he said. "But it was Christians in World War II who bombed innocent civilians in Dresden and dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets."

Then there is the interview he gave to CBS's "60 Minutes" shortly after the 9/11 attacks occurred. "I wouldn't say that the United States deserved what happened," he said by way of explaining the attacks. "But the United States' policies were an accessory to the crime that happened."

More often than not, he's pushed his audience to grapple with uncomfortable analogies in his efforts to contextualize Islamic radicalism, such as when he argued that the Ku Klux Klan was, likewise, drawn from a form of extreme religiosity.

Those statements, in the end, were not enough to convince the Bush administration that he was a militant. Feisal Abdul Rauf was dispatched on speaking tours by the past State Department on multiple occasions to help promote tolerance and religious diversity in the Arab and Muslim world. In 2007, he went to Morocco, the UAE, Qatar and Egypt on such missions, a State Department official confirmed to the Huffington Post.

In February 2006, meanwhile, he took part in a U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar with Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes, a close adviser to President Bush. Months later, Feisal Abdul Rauf wrote favorably about his meeting with Hughes, noting that he wanted to further the discussion with other members of the administration. . .
_____
SOURCE: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/1 ... 85071.html

I still don't quite agree with some of his analogies. However, he has been a force for moderation and for good. He's hardly the devil everyone is making him out to be nowadays.

=====

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.

Since I originally was explaining how it's unfair to compare the Imam with Pastor Jones -- how is this a logical counter-argument?

Jone's Church was afraid to question him.
Muslims in "Islamic Countries" are afraid to ask questions.
Imam Rauf is a Muslim_____
Ergo: He forbids his followers to question him.




Here is my evidence for my statement that Jones' proclaimed to his old church that questioning him is questioning God.

Aired September 10, 2010 - 18:00 ET . . .


MALVEAUX: Hundreds of people in Cologne, Germany, have been watching this story unfold with special interest, because they are members of Jones' former church.

Using CNN's global resources, we found some of them willing to speak about their disillusionment, what ultimately led Jones to leave them. It is a compelling part of the story.

And they shared it with CNN's Phil Black. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PHIL BLACK, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): For 20 years, Heinz and Elka Koop followed their pastor, Terry Jones. For 19 of those years, they trusted his every word.

HEINZ KOOP, FORMER JONES FOLLOWER: He was a charismatic leader. I think he was -- the preference was very strong for us.

BLACK: Jones' church, the Christian Community of Cologne, became the focus of their lives. Jones insisted on it, borrowing an infamous Nazi motto.

H. KOOP: And we worked the whole week, also Sunday and Saturday.

BLACK (on camera): For the church?

ELKA KOOP, FORMER JONES FOLLOWER: Yes.

H. KOOP: For the church, yes.

E. KOOP: Work made free.

BLACK: Is that what he said?

E. KOOP: Yes.

BLACK: Work makes you free?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

CHANCE (voice-over): The Koops say that Terry Jones didn't speak German when he arrived in this country, but even so, he built a congregation of around 1,000 worshippers telling them he had been sent to Germany by God to do His will, and he must be obeyed.

E. KOOP: Who was bigger than God? So it was a big reason why it fell out.

CHANCE (on camera): If you questioned the things he told you to do, did he say this you were questioning God?

E. KOOP: Yes.

BLACK: He did?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

E. KOOP: Yes.

BLACK: So to question Terry Jones was to question God?

E. KOOP: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. That's correct.

E. KOOP: Yes.

CHANCE (voice-over): The Koops rose through the hierarchy of the church based in these modest buildings on the outskirts of the city. They regularly traveled to Jones' other church in Florida.

Heinz (ph) (ph) eventually took on a key job in the church fund- raising business which sold donated goods for the church.

(on camera) What happened to that money?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (SPEAKING FOREIGN LANGUAGE)

E. KOOP: Yes. We didn't know it in the beginning. He saw it, and this would have (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that this goes to the church.

CHANCE (voice-over): They started to see other problems with the business. They say its workforce of believers were paid almost nothing. They say worshippers were persuaded to give everything; sell their own belongings, even their homes.

The control over people grew in every way, he tells me: personally, emotionally and financially. Heinz (ph) says his awareness also grew and after months of trying, persuaded his wife they should leave the church together.

Then came the day they openly stood up to Terry Jones.

E. KOOP: It was a revolution.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was war.

BLACK: Others quickly joined him. It was important that you could criticize him, he says, and show everyone he's human with weaknesses.

E. KOOP: He left and never come back.

BLACK: That was in 2008. The church severed all ties with Jones and continues today under new leadership. Terry Jones relocated permanently to his Florida church. From there he's grabbed the world's attention with plans to mark the anniversary of 9/11 by burning the Koran.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's completely convinced that he is, so to speak, God's first ambassador.

BLACK: Protestant Pastor Andrew Schafer says he's counseled dozens of people whose lives were damaged by Jones and his church.

He cannot stand the pain of losing his significance, he says, and this is why he's using this issue now to try to become a big player again.

Elka and Heinz (ph) say they're still angry with Jones. But they're also angry with themselves for letting him control their lives for so long. Phil Black, CNN, Cologne, Germany.

(END VIDEOTAPE)


_____
SOURCE:http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1009 ... om.02.html

=====

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.

There is a big difference between me calling an act "stupid and immature" - "and me calling someone "stupid and immature."

I've never called anyone here "stupid."

=====

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".

May I ask why you want nothing to do with it? Could it be perhaps:

*You don't understand it or want to understand it?
*You hate it?

=====

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.

To be honest this is the first time I've heard of people who oppose the mosque because of the way it looks. May I ask you to elaborate?

Rendering Shows Little Detail Of Mosque's Design

August 12, 2010

There's been a lot of debate over the planned Islamic community center that would be built near the spot where the World Trade Center once stood. But there's been very little talk about what the building will look like. Rick Bell, executive director of the New York chapter of the American Institute of Architects, talks to Steve Inskeep about design concepts for the building.

[TRANSCRIPT]


STEVE INSKEEP, host:

Let's try to get some more insight now into a proposed Islamic center in New York City. That center is planned near the spot where the World Trade Center once stood. It is generating fierce debate. And the people who approve of the idea include Rick Bell. He directs the New York chapter of the American Institute of Architects and for almost nine years now, Bell has been involved in the debate over rebuilding Lower Manhattan.

When you talk with Bell, you begin to sense what the building might look like, and the messages its architecture might send.

If you're physically standing on the site of the World Trade Center, do you see this piece of real estate, where this Islamic center would be?

Mr. RICK BELL (American Institute of Architects): No, you do not. It's not across the street. It's not adjacent. It doesn't contribute to the meaning of what the memorial will be.

INSKEEP: What do you know about what kind of a building it is supposed to be?

Mr. BELL: Very little. I think the building will be an Islamic cultural center. That will include a place of worship. Strictly speaking, a room where people worship can be called a mosque. But it's not a building, as I understand it, that will look like a preconception of a mosque.

There'll be no minarets. It'll be a building that has a character, I am sure, that will be consistent with the types of activities that occur within. What that will likely mean in terms of renderings - a single rendering that was shown at the community board meeting is something that has a strict geometry, that doesn't have a representational quality. There'll be no super-graphics or advertising, but you could be sure that the symbolism that is involved in many beautiful buildings of Islamic culture around the world will start with a strong sense of geometry, and a symbolism of that geometry.

INSKEEP: You said strict geometry. Is one of the things that you mean by that, that it's basically it's a rectangular building. It's a 13-story building; it just looks like a building.

Mr. BELL: Well, I think a building, especially in the middle of a block where the shape of a building can't be all that volumetrically varied, is going to be a box. You know, I think the organizers of the building have said that. Let's assume that that box will be decorated by a facade that has a way of both allowing light in and screening light - something that will look timeless and beautiful. That's the aspiration, that's the hope.

INSKEEP: What kinds of messages can a building send by the way that it's designed?

Mr. BELL: You know, I think it's altogether to be expected that any building that talks to a spiritual dialogue is going to have a facade, is going to have windows and doorways that talk about invitation, that talk about transparency and connectivity. If those are words that imply, then, architectural form, the symbolism of the building's facade is going to be, I think, one of acceptance, you know, and tolerance.

INSKEEP: Let me make a crude example here, of this, if I can. If youre talking about transparency or connectivity, youre maybe talking about, for example, a building with lots of glass as opposed to a lot of stone walls.

Mr. BELLS: Well, glass that can be also tempered by screening. If you look at the old police stations in New York from a generation ago, the Fort Apache in the Bronx was a fortress. More recently, the city has built police stations -Richard Dattner in Washington Heights - that talk about transparency by using more glass, yet they're not glass boxes.

To say that a mosque, a synagogue, a church, any building at which people get away from or try to get away from the pressures and constraints of daily life -churches are defined, in many instances, by their portals, by the beauty of their doors but certainly, as much - in some cases more - by the beauty of the windows, by the stained-glass rose windows, by the veiled connection allowing light in and a sense of the outside inside. That doesnt mean a glass box.

INSKEEP: So if you were the architect that they came to, to design this building, you'd be looking for something that was somehow open to the community but at the same time, allowed a certain amount of privacy and contemplation once you got inside.

Mr. BELL: That says it very well. An opening to the community, I think, also has to address the rancor, the controversy that has grown up about this building, fears that some in the community have that need to be addressed - and no better place than here.

INSKEEP: Do you think it's likely that no matter how it's designed, no matter how it's built - that if it ever does come to pass, if this Islamic center is constructed - that the vast majority of people who come to Lower Manhattan, or even who walk on that particular street a couple blocks from the World Trade Center site, will never even notice it?

Mr. BELL: People see what they want to see. And there will be people who will stop at this building after it's done and say, you see, I told you so. Look how different and alienating this is. How different from our experience - how different from my synagogue, how different from my church, how different from the place I work or the place I live. That won't be bad. You know, it'll cause people to maybe think about why it's different, and in what ways it might also be similar.

As an architect, I dont think I would claim a doctrine of architectural tolerance, but if you look at the streetscape of New York in terms of its great variety of styles, its great historical variety of when buildings were built, it's an active and vibrant mix of architecture that talks about how, on this world, we have to live together.

INSKEEP: Mmm. Rick Bell of the American Institute of Architects, thanks very much.

Mr. BELL: My pleasure.

_____
SOURCE: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =129146349

=====

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.

Xenophobia is a fear of individuals who look or behave differently than than those one is accustomed to.

_____
SOURCE: http://www.finestquotes.com/select_quot ... page-0.htm

[center]
SOURCE: http://www.onejerusalem.com/wp-content/ ... 42x300.jpg[/center]

=====


I also have access to the news. I tend to be very investigative when it comes to certain stories. I know that MSNBC and FOX tend to spin their news quite a bit. Most of my news comes from online sources. I do prefer CNN because more times than not, they are more accurate than others.

I am completely and very aware of suicide bombings in various locations around the world. I am aware of the American hostage situation in Iran. I am aware of the woman falsely accused of adultery in Iran - who is waiting to be stoned to death. I am aware of radical websites like Revolution Muslim -- a group similar to the Black Panthers in my mind.

I am aware of all this and more.

But I am also aware of moderates and their voices. I don't make wild absurd statements like "if there are moderates" -- as Geert Wilder does.

There are countless websites and groups across the planet -- countless clerics and imams that teach and preach a moderate message which condemns violence.


I am also aware of the fact that our never ending wars in the middle east hurt our relationship with the Muslim world -- many of whome don't have access to news untainted by government interference. Every civilian death -- accidental or purposefully done:

Twelve American soldiers face charges over a secret "kill team" that allegedly blew up and shot Afghan civilians at random and collected their fingers as trophies.
_____
SOURCE: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/se ... ns-fingers

I know that every time our nation messes up, the world is watching.

I know that the situation is complex.

I have enough sense not to lump all terrorists groups together as being united in all their endeavors (Some want to attack Israel, others the U.S. - Some just want Americans out of the middle east -- others attack Russia for ethnic reasons)

Almost always, terrorism now a days is political - of course it is steeped in radical cult-like interpretations of Islam - but non-the-less it is what it is.

Most of all I have enough sense to realize and recognize the difference between moderate Muslims and Islam -- and radical Islamists and their ideology.


I mean for gods sakes, Person A. can't just watch the news and hear about a suicide bomber who blew up a mosque in Iraq because of ethnic and sectarian divisions -- become angry -- and then harbor that contempt for the Muslim kid at school B. because of whatever A assumes Islam teaches.

It's just not fair - on any level. It's totally unjustifiable to do this:

[center]
SOURCE: http://fpwatch.blogspot.com/ [/center]

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 74:

I hope all is well in the land of micatala. The least fearful sort would hope you weren't the challenger. Looks like I'm watering most my garden with logical inferences - such as mine may be called...Unfortunately I find myself relying on a good bit of metaphor, but hope folks see I'm cutting the meat close to the bone...

Sure, one could "interpret" the Koran burning as a statement against Muslims who promote and engage in violence.

But again, one could burn Bibles as a statement against the Fred Phelps of the world.

I propose it doesn't matter who the effigy refers to, but that an effigy is a legitimate, and even valuable expression of ridicule, scorn, and protest against a given target. Mind you, I don't propose the burning of "voodoo dolls" as a form of overt threat, but as an opinion.

In symbol we present an "ancient fear", an "obvious fear" - fire. I propose a great many humans share a certain "tribal understanding" of what symbolic meaning fire may entail, from destruction to rebirth, from heat to action. By burning the symbols of our disagreement, and even our hatreds, we are able to express ourselves without resorting to actual violence. We tell the world where we stand - morally or intellectually - and we just may avoid the actual violence the display presents.

Look at our primate brethren who recognize display for its ability to thwart off greater conflict. By silencing and suppressing these displays in humans, we risk the "festering sore" of discontent rising to mass action. History tells us the oppressed will eventually have their day, whether in effigy or combat.

What thought... Who's thought is so precious it can't face a bit of ridicule?

In both cases I am reminded of the old Monty Python skit where they went out hunting mosquitoes with a bazooka.

In both cases, you offend a lot of people not in the target audience.

Often though, it is those offended who are the target audience, who need most to hear the message.

I said this earlier, but I'll repeat. The issue is a practical one.

With the utmost respect for one whose opinions I value, practical schmactical.

Is it practical to silence all voices? If not, who is so learned to know just which ones to hush?

Do you want to engage in such an action and have the nut jobs in the Muslim world start attacking innocent Christians or our troops?

I say draw these "nutjobs" out, and let's expose them for the "nutjobs" they are.

I hope to never cower in silence before those who are not happy to hear my message.

If you throw fresh meat in the water next to a bunch of swimmers when there are sharks around, is that a smart thing to do?

Ask the shark.

Our silence is chum to the shark. Our fear sticks in his teeth.

Now, I sympathize with the notion that this holds us hostage in some sense to irrational elements. I am loathe to do this.

Loathe to do it heck, I ain't gonna.

However, the proposed action is rather pointless as the "alleged message" is not likely to get through to the intended audience (if that was his message).

I admit that in individual cases the message may be hard to discern. My overall concern is in silencing the message.

If his message is essentially "we hate Muslims" or "we hate Islam" then that message will certainly get through loud and clear as that is the message a lot of people will take away even if his intention were only to speak out against violence.

Can you think of a more effective means of propagating that message than by burning these folks' holy texts?

If I could discern any positive intention or effect from this action I would feel differently about it.

With all respect, your discernment may be the least concern. It is the act that is important - to the actor, and to whomever the actor intends the message. Some of us'll be side-liners to every bit of it.

I certainly don't think we should change our behavior in general solely because some people might get upset and violent about it. However, to pointless make other people upset is, well, pointless.

Again, what you take from a protest could just be immaterial. It is the protest that is important, the right to protest.

Do you possess sufficient knowledge to state a given individual's protest is "pointless" to anyone other than yourself?

I'd agree if "calling them on it" had any real meaning or effect. Here, you might as well be talking to a brick wall, or a shark. IF the target audience is those in the Muslim community who are essentially deranged homicidal maniacs, sending them a message or "calling them" on their activities is pointless. It's like calling out a grizzly for empyting your fridge of all the goodies.

I wish I could be the sole determinant of what constitutes "pointless" speech.

We should not cower at the feet of religious zealots, I absolutley agree. I disagree that it is necessary to make a thousand times more people than the religious zealots angry in the process.

How might we sort out what constitutes acceptable speech and protest without getting some folks angry in the process?

Do we stop at the first voice of anger? The millionth?

As all have a right to protest my speech, I will till my dying day defend my right to do some protesting of my own.

Is there not a cleverer or more productive way to make the point? You know, one that the guys in the armed forces won't have to pay for with their lives?

Do you have sufficient moral, social or intellectual status to declare for us what constitutes "clever" or "more productive"?

Can you propose a better way to tick off the easily ticked off than to just go on and tick 'em off right there from the get-go?

If we honor those who have sacrificed and died for the principle that freedom is precious and dear, then by golly we shouldn't threaten someone over burning a book - or drawning a danged cartoon.

Who is threatening Jones? I don't think he should be threatened. I think, as has been done, responsible adults should explain the facts of life to him. I am glad he listened.

itizen. Do not speak your mind. Do not act out. Be a good citizen.

I'd just as soon be a Borg.

Being angry about Muslim radicals is not bigoted. Hating all Muslims because of what some of them do I think would be, although it is certainly understandable, especially for those who did lose people on 9/11.

Heck with it. If your culture, race, ethnicity, creed, or moose lodge affiliation carries to the notion you'd rather silence folks than let them have their say, then I'm the biggest bigot on the block and I hate every blamed one of ya.

Thinking some religious people are too sensitive about their holy books is also not bigoted.

Thank you.

I would certainly not say that those who think it is just fine what he is doing on free speech grounds are bigots. Again, my only objections are:

1) It's possible effects

Do you fear the possible negative effects, or the possible positive effects?

2) It seems to be based more on general hatred of all things Muslim than anything else.

It can certainly come across that way, but my hatred is of the oppressor. If a given group is the oppressor, that group is my "bigot trigger".

I have no doubt there are many fine and honorable Muslims and I hope to call these folks family. Except all the ones that would silence my or my neighbor's voice.

[naz]

I think the media and people around the world blew the entire thing out of proportion and they should all be ashamed of themselves. If people were right with GOD and right with the LORD then they wouldn’t have anything to worry about. I think he actually proved his point by making people all over the world of different views, beliefs and faith look like idiots. Think about it, the world came together for a split second all because they didn’t want that man to exercise his first amendment rights and being the kind and courteous man he is he decided not to burn the Quran. I think everyone that said something bad about Pastor Jones owes the man an apology!@

[cnorman18]

Nobody ever heard of this guy before this controversy. He had 50 members in his congregation. I had more than that in my church when I was preaching in a town with a population of 450. He was a nobody that no one paid the least attention to.

Now he's famous worldwide, has been interviewed on CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC and Fox, is considered a hero by millions, and will probably write a book which will be bought by those millions. "Millions" may have another context in his future.

Mission accomplished.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 75:

I will retract any statement that implies or claims Rhonan has called any particular person or group "stupid", "immature", etc. The point I try to make against such arguments is that they are subjective opinion - and no more valid than any others' opinions.

Have you read a Qur'an?

While I agree one's having read the Qur'an may lend a measure of credence to their argument, it still doesn't matter whether one has ever even seen one. The right to protest should be for the ignorant as well as the informed.

A number of Muslims belief in the inerrancy of the Qur'an...

It's these folks I fear the most. I don't doubt there are many good, loving, peaceable, and downright friendly Muslims. I look at the totality of the culture / religion in basing my opposition to Islam - and whether I support Islam or not is, imo, beside the point.

Either we allow freedom of speech or we don't.

However, when the original verbiage is understood, the punishment which terrorists like Al-Queda practice, goes against the actual meaning.

What the book has to say, for good or bad, is beside the point. It is the silencing or suppressing of free speech I argue against.

I personally do not support this practice, nor am I defending it. I am simply explaining that there are other ways to interpret the Qur'an...

I don't doubt multiple interpretations are available. I argue specifically against the silencing of free speech because some folks get their or their god's feelings hurt.

I do acknowledge that this is a problem, but I can promise you, none of my Muslim friends or colleges are running around with a dagger cutting peoples hands off -- to assume all Muslims want to do this is just a bit ignorant.

Saudi Arabia ring a bell? Iran? Afghanistan?

These are entire countries or cultures whose values I've come to reject. I object to the cultures / states / ideologies involved there because they suppress free speech - regardless of the name of whatever god their doing it for. That this suppression of free speech can be found so readily in predominantly Muslim communities is sufficient reason to fear an increase of power by such folks.

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.

When I said this, I assumed that no one here gets their kicks by burning a religion's holy book in private, as if to say -- That'll teach all them stupid Muslims how much I hate them and their dessert stuff!

Who died and made you judge of what constitutes "stupid" or "immature" wasting of time?

I'll stand by my original statement. Of course, that doesn't mean I'm calling anyone names. I'm just simply expressing the silliness of the matter.

Exactly my point. You use your freedom of speech when it suits your purposes, but consider others using their free speech to be "stupid", "immature", a "waste of time". You insult (peaceably) their endeavors, while ostensibly reserving consideration of your endeavors as not "stupid", not "immature", not a "waste of time".

They call that hypocrisy where I'm from.

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.

I said this because I recall hearing that the Pastor had never actually read any of the Korans he had planned to burn.

As above, I agree having read the Koran may lend credence to one's argument, but it should not be a requirement for speech to have read the entire contents of one's holy texts.

Frankly, there's a good many of us can't get through the first few pages of a religious text without considering them "stupid", "immature" and a "waste of time". However, we realize those are opinions, and that other folks are (or should be) free to consider them in whatever manner they see fit.

It shouldn't matter if you even know what a Koran is, but that you feel yourself qualified to speak.

My question was clearly rhetorical. When I ask "why do something?" "Because you can!" is not a sufficient enough reason.

And you are the sole arbiter of what consititutes sufficient reason for everyone on the planet?

Megalomania is such a dirty word.

Of course, you can burn a cross too - you can do a lot - but why?

"Because it pisses people off!" - George Carlin

The act in and of itself is stupid.

I feel confident that all are, by now, aware you are the sole arbiter of what constitutes "stupid".

Stupid stunts are done because of ignorance/or kicks - and it almost always sends a hateful message.

Only to those who hate the message.

Others consider it a form of speech. Freedom of speech is for all, or it is "privilege of speech".

Sure, it technically falls under the right of Free Speech -- but then again so is burning a cross.

Do you seek to silence those who would also burn a cross?

Burn (without causing a conflagration) any symbol. Burn a girl scout cookie for all I care.

The recent buzzword: "wisdom" of doing it is what I'm getting at

I propose one who possesses "wisdom" would see the fallacy in calling something "stupid" just because they disagree with it.

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.

I've always backed up my opinions with sources...

If the source is itself and opinion, we're still stuck on opinion.

By what authority are you claiming moral superiority?

you picked up on a debate between me and WinePusher -- I was addressing some of his points in the post you replied to. If you want to see more about how I firmly believe it is completely and totally unfair to compare Pastor Jones and Imam Rauf, please read some of my posts in this thread -- where I actually quote Imam Rauf in context and debunk the myth that he is some sort of radical.

Again I must ask, by what authority are you claiming moral superiority?

I see two religious folks doing stuff a lot of other folks are carrying on about. Am I now immoral? Is my statement immoral?

Fornicate morality, it is nothing more than one man's opinion concerning how folks oughta act. Here I draw my moral authority from the notion that free speech is free to all, or it is privileged.

You say that as if you think the government is promoting Wahhabist Sharia Law. To me it sounds like one of three things
*exaggeration
*sarcasm
*paranoia

Is it exaggeration to say those who are born into Islam face death for converting to other religions in many Islamic nations?

Is it sarcasm to say many women have been killed by their own families over "honor" even when the woman was raped among Islamic nations and cultures?

Is it paranoia to not want to live in such?

And here's why I believe that. Here is an article that describes what he did for the FBI. It's hardly the conspiracy you are making it out to be.

I don't trust the words of those who have or are currently working in known secretive organizations. This includes claims regarding the FBI, the CIA, and how them folks at the moose lodge shake hands.

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.

Since I originally was explaining how it's unfair to compare the Imam with Pastor Jones -- how is this a logical counter-argument?

It's questioning everything that is a fundamental part of free speech. As you compare one religious leader to another, I question the one leader's religion.

Jone's Church was afraid to question him.
Muslims in "Islamic Countries" are afraid to ask questions.
Imam Rauf is a Muslim_____
Ergo: He forbids his followers to question him.

Argument from exception. I base my concerns on the totality of the evidence, the totality of effects within a culture, and not on one-off examples.

Again, Christian or Muslim, I reject any notion that silencing free speech is a good thing because it may cause folks some upset.

Here is my evidence for my statement that Jones' proclaimed to his old church that questioning him is questioning God.

Considering many religious texts are full of threats and condemnation for anyone who disagrees, it can be reasonably and logically deduced some humans may employ the tactic themselves, especially as part of their proselytizing for that particular text.

I consider calling folks "stupid" or "immature" - especially when I don't agree with them - just as evil.

There is a big difference between me calling an act "stupid and immature" - "and me calling someone "stupid and immature."

I've never called anyone here "stupid."

Please see retraction at the start of this document. I offer apologies for any misstating, whether implicit or implied, of your position.

You call it "hate and ignorance", I call it "sending a message I want nothing to do with this drivel".

May I ask why you want nothing to do with it?

It doesn't matter. What is central here is that freedom of speech not require one study a tome to reject it. All that matters is that one has formed an opinion - right or wrong - and seek to express that opinion.

Could it be perhaps:

*You don't understand it or want to understand it?
*You hate it?

I'd say I hate its effects on a culture.

Actually, I consider what I understand to be the design of the building offensive, but really don't care where they build it.

To be honest this is the first time I've heard of people who oppose the mosque because of the way it looks. May I ask you to elaborate?

Disclaimer: the following image is what I understand to be a proposed design, and I have as yet been unable to confirm the design as offical:


It looks like a smoke covered building to me. Shaped in the (admittedly common) squarish design of the WTC buildings, even imitating the two buildings by being similar or exact height to the other squarish building in the right of the picture.

Now, my point here is that regardless of what the building looks like - if it is a carbon copy of the WTC with big explosions built onto the sides - or if it is shaped like a clown - that is a form of speech. If "you" wish to offend me and decide to build a building that you know offends me, go right on ahead. Don't cry to me if I burn effigies of that building.

Again, my point is kinda irrelevant to whatever gets built, and as I've previously mentioned I think they have the right to build where they're proposing, and even have the right to make the building just as insultingly ugly as they wish. They just shouldn't have the right to silence folks opposing those plans - not that they've attempted such.

This ties back into the OP because we gotta wonder who has the final word regarding what constitutes legitimate, and therefore 'free' speech, or 'free architecture' for that matter.

Xenophobia is a fear of individuals who look or behave differently than than those one is accustomed to.

And reason is the ability to look at something and say I want no part of it.

If my fear of a culture that oppresses others labels me, then looks like me and ol' Xena are fixing to get married.

I also have access to the news. I tend to be very investigative when it comes to certain stories. I know that MSNBC and FOX tend to spin their news quite a bit. Most of my news comes from online sources. I do prefer CNN because more times than not, they are more accurate than others.

CNN here.

I am completely and very aware of suicide bombings in various locations around the world...

What group of folks might we consider thinks it's a good idea to blow up innocents and who may be found to do so in statistically greater numbers?

If I propose an answer, does that mean Xena and I are married?

But I am also aware of moderates and their voices. I don't make wild absurd statements like "if there are moderates" -- as Geert Wilder does.

So, only moderates should have a voice?

There are countless websites and groups across the planet -- countless clerics and imams that teach and preach a moderate message which condemns violence.

I am totally with that, and don't propose otherwise - unless these folks seek to silence my speech.

I am also aware of the fact that our never ending wars in the middle east hurt our relationship with the Muslim world -- many of whome don't have access to news untainted by government interference. Every civilian death -- accidental or purposefully done:

To me the OP is not about this or that war, but about the war against freedom of speech and expression.

mean for gods sakes, Person A. can't just watch the news and hear about a suicide bomber who blew up a mosque in Iraq because of ethnic and sectarian divisions -- become angry -- and then harbor that contempt for the Muslim kid at school B. because of whatever A assumes Islam teaches.

But he sure ought not be silenced for saying he thinks there is a connection - right or wrong.

It's just not fair - on any level. It's totally unjustifiable to do this:

But you just did.

Such imagery is acceptable when it suits your purposes, but is "stupid", "immature" or a "waste of time" when it suits another's.

[Goat]

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/12/ska ... ing-quran/

As news that Rev. Terry Jones of the Dove Outreach Center planned to publicly burn a Qur’an — an operation which appears to have been called off, for now — raced around the world, many in the Muslim world reacted with angry protests, feeling that Jones’ actions were indicative of an America that was indifferent to the sensitivities of the Islamic faith.

Yet on Saturday, the day that Jones had dubbed “International Burn a Qur’an Day,� one American stepped forward to fight back against the rising tide of Islamophobia among the far-right.

In Amarillo, Texas, David Grisham, director of Repent Amarillo, “which aims to deter promiscuity, homosexuality and non-Christian worship practices through confrontation and prayer,� planned to burn the Islamic holy text at a public gathering. But before he could set the book ablaze, a 23 year-old skateboarder named Jacob Isom swooped in and grabbed it:

A planned Quran burning Saturday in Amarillo was thwarted by a 23-year-old carrying a skateboard and wearing a T-shirt with “I’m in Repent Amarillo No Joke� scrawled by hand on the back.

Jacob Isom, 23, grabbed David Grisham’s Quran when he became distracted while arguing with several residents at Sam Houston Park about the merits of burning the Islamic holy book. “You’re just trying to start Holy Wars,� Isom said of Grisham after he gave the book to a religious leader from the Islamic Center of Amarillo.

Local news station News Channel 10 covered the event and interviewed Isom. Isom told News Channel 10 that “he heard something about burning the Qur’an. Then I snuck up behind [Grisham] and told him, ‘Dude, you have no Qur’an,’ and took off.�