Burn a Quran day

westprog said:
The people who will exploit this don't want it to be the responsibility of one crazy parson. They want it to be the collective responsibility of the West, so that they can get some kid to strap explosives to himself and blow up something - possibly the wrong kind of mosque. I doubt if there will be a fatwa. There will be riots, and people will die.
Click to expand...

The one burning the books (and exploiting the publicity generated) don't want 9/11 to be the responsibility of an extremly small group of fanatic extremist. They want it to be the collective responsibility of the east/Islam so that they can strap themselves in bigotry and use it as an excuse to hate a whole swath of the US population as well as 1/4 of the humanity. I don't doubt that there will be riot and people will die.

Just like the same idiot which bomb abortion clinic in the name of the christ, or burn cinema room in the name of the christ (*).

Putting responsability of a few bad apple onto a whole group is IDIOTIC. pedophile Priest didling children don't make the whole christianity responsible. It only make the hirarchy which allowed that directly responsible.

(*) happened in France. If you wanna get some detail google last temptation of christ.
 
bokonon said:
I think book burning, flag burning, and effigy burning is stupid and childish. It's real-world trolling, done just to incite an emotional reaction, and should simply be ignored by everyone.
Click to expand...
That's a nice safe post. I doubt that anyone will argue with you except to say "dream on."
 
Nanny Ogg said:
On a purely practical matter, if the church accidentally sets anything else on fire, I hope they get charged with arson, not some slap-on-the-wrist fine.
Click to expand...
And if it was a church that caught fire, the irony meter would be on over-load.
 
tsig said:
Then let's talk about burning Korans. I'm not in favor of burning any books but it seems to me that freedom of speech allows them to do this. If Muslims get inflamed by it then that is the Muslims problem.
Click to expand...

No one is saying they don't have the "right" to burn the Korans, but it is just stupid to inflame the non-terrorists Muslims who will now be more likely to join up with the terrorists. The Taliban is loving this Koran burning so they can use it as a recruiting tool for members. I can see it now, "See, we told you, these Americans hate Islam!" These idiot burners are giving the terrorist Muslims and non-terrorist Muslims a common enemy. This people are doing the terrorists a huge favor...
 
bobcarp said:
No one is saying they don't have the "right" to burn the Korans, but it is just stupid to inflame the non-terrorists Muslims who will now be more likely to join up with the terrorists.
Click to expand...
I will accept their right to do what they are doing (though it is stupid and in the grand scheme of things make things worse) as long as they accept my right to burn bibles. Do you think that they would?
 
bobcarp said:
No one is saying they don't have the "right" to burn the Korans, but it is just stupid to inflame the non-terrorists Muslims who will now be more likely to join up with the terrorists. The Taliban is loving this Koran burning so they can use it as a recruiting tool for members. I can see it now, "See, we told you, these Americans hate Islam!" These idiot burners are giving the terrorist Muslims and non-terrorist Muslims a common enemy. This people are doing the terrorists a huge favor...
Click to expand...
It's actually a really good idea. If we can manage to turn the entire Muslim world against us, we can stop caring about collateral damage.
 
noreligion said:
It's been nice talking to you but it's time to go on ignore. Had you answered a question this wouldn't have happened.
Click to expand...

He kept trying to answer and you kept rejecting his answers. He then asked you what manner of evidence you were looking for in order to better answer your question. This is a mature and valid response. You were very insistant that you were looking for a very specific kind of answer, and he was trying to ascertain what exactly that was because you were unclear as to what you were looking for. And you put him on ignore for attempting to answer your question and have a dialogue with you...as you also throw out childish insults while he was simply trying to answer your question.

How mature.

You may be here to fight, but Merv is obviously trying to honestly exchange ideas with you. That's what the great thing about JREF is, as Marquis said recently. It's a great place to come together and learn from eachother. It's unfortunate that you are missing the entire point of the JREF community, and are just here to make snide remarks.


Luckily, the rest of us have ignore buttons as well.
 
Last edited:
These twits who want to burn copies of the Qur'an are missing a bet. What they ought to do is read the Qur'an. Then they can ask Muslims if they actually beieve some ofthe stuff that's written in it.

They could ask, for example, if they really think that Alexander the Great (called Duhl Qarnaiyn in Surah 18) built an iron gate at a pass in the Caucasus Mountains to keep out Gog and Magog, a gate that is still standing today.

They could also ask why, if the archangel Gabriel dictated everything in the Qur'an to the Prophet, he kept repeating himself. The story of how Iblis refused to bow to the newly created Adam, as ordered by God, is related a total five times in the Qur'an.

Finally, they could write down all the verses about unbelievers who are nevertheless "People of the Book" and ask the Muslims to explain the contradictions: Do other People of the Book go to heaven or hell? Are they to be treated with tolerance or treated harshly? Etc.

I also wonder if the twits are going to be upset when some Muslim group decides to burn Bibles.
 
It is really indisputable that burning the Quran in protest of Islam is protected under the First Amendment.
However, it is also well-settled that cities can have a general prohibition on bonfires and the like.
 
Schrodinger's Cat said:
He kept trying to answer and you kept rejecting his answers. He then asked you what manner of evidence you were looking for in order to better answer your question. This is a mature and valid response. You were very insistant that you were looking for a very specific kind of answer, and he was trying to ascertain what exactly that was because you were unclear as to what you were looking for. And you put him on ignore for attempting to answer your question and have a dialogue with you...as you also throw out childish insults while he was simply trying to answer your question.

How mature.

You may be here to fight, but Merv is obviously trying to honestly exchange ideas with you. That's what the great thing about JREF is, as Marquis said recently. It's a great place to come together and learn from eachother. It's unfortunate that you are missing the entire point of the JREF community, and are just here to make snide remarks.


Luckily, the rest of us have ignore buttons as well.
Click to expand...

I don't think an ignore button is enough. I want a button to burn noreligion's posts.
 
AvalonXQ said:
It is really indisputable that burning the Quran in protest of Islam is protected under the First Amendment.
However, it is also well-settled that cities can have a general prohibition on bonfires and the like.
Click to expand...

It's a dubious precedent to use a law for a purpose for which it isn't designed - i.e. censorship. Whatever the local fire regulations are for, it certainly has nothing to do with preventing mayhem and uproar in the Islamic world, however desirable that might be. Despotic regimes are often quite ingenious at using health and safety rules to stifle opposition. It's not a good thing to do. A book can be safely burned outdoors without any significant hazard.
 
Who is nuttier? Those who would kill to have the right to burn a religious book, or those who would kill someone for burning a religious book?
 
Nanny Ogg said:
On a purely practical note, this church doesn't have a permit to go ahead with the burning.

City officials denied a burning permit, as book burnings are prohibited under the city's burning ordinance, and the church could face fines.

If anyone here has ever burnt paper, you know that it flies up and can drift upwards, landing on nearby roofs or trees, and set other things alight. It doesn't take much.

On a purely practical matter, if the church accidentally sets anything else on fire, I hope they get charged with arson, not some slap-on-the-wrist fine.

And I'm sure the town Fire personnel have nothing better to do than babysit this event. :mad:
Click to expand...

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I think instead of "Burn the Koran Day" they should have like a "Draw Mohammed Day" or something. Same deal, less danger.
 
westprog said:
It's a dubious precedent to use a law for a purpose for which it isn't designed - i.e. censorship.
Click to expand...

The city I grew up in has a blanket ban against bonfires within the city limits. If you want a bonfire, you leave the city limits and do it on public land (or rent private land) in the surrounding township.
The city doesn't care WHY you want the bonfire; the answer is no (it might be possible to get a permit granted for an exception). Even if someone wanted to have a religious or political bonfire, that doesn't suddenly exempt them from the fire safety regulations. They can do it elsewhere.
 
Drewbot said:
Who is nuttier? Those who would kill to have the right to burn a religious book, or those who would kill someone for burning a religious book?
Click to expand...

What's nutty about being willing to kill or die to preserve your rights?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom