Burn a Quran day

A lot of believers in the death cult that is Christianity want to see a cataclysmic war with Muslims. They believe the Book of Revelations is not only a true description of the end of the world but want to help it along. His deluded intent may be to inflame the war for the purpose of bringing about this silly "second coming" thingy. He thinks a lot of himself if he believes he's going to start a war that will lead to a battle of annihilation outside Jerusalem. If that is his intent he doesn't strike me as sophisticated enough to have that sort of impact.
 
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/09/setting_the_koran_on_fire_vs_s.php

PZ MYers said:
And to suggest that some guy burning a book in a remote land will incite more anti-American sentiment is absurd. We've got drones buzzing over Iraq and Afghanistan killing people with a push of a button; we've got an armed force occupying those countries; we have bombed their infrastructure into rubble. We've killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims. And now we're to believe that their love of the West will be suddenly devastated by a video of paper burning on youtube? Get a grip, man.
Click to expand...

So I can see where he's coming from. However... There are times when people lose their temper over something trivial while, in fact, it's something else which really bothers them.

So, I think it was important for Obama and Clinton to voice their disapproval. Especially if asked.

I also disagreed with PZ when he desecrated the wafer. There was a thread on it at the time.



Moon-Spinner said:
Well, this should come as no surprise to anyone, but the Westboro Baptists have "Picked up the Torch", so to speak...

Westboro Link
Click to expand...

Why do I get "Westboro" and "Landover" mixed up? They have hardly any letters in common.
 
Last edited:
Towlie said:
Again, he was asked not to go through with it. They didn't infringe on his right to free speech anymore that I infringed on yours by hinting that you should learn that the phrase "a lot" is two words.
Click to expand...

While you are correct, I can only imagine how people here would have reacted had Gates 'asked' Free Inquiry or other publications not to print the cartoons. For that matter the reaction to the the Danish government officials who apologized for the cartoons.

Technically it's not a constitutional violation (though it might be 'chilling effect'), but they simply don't belong here supporting cowtowing to these violent idiots.

I'm completely with PZ on this
 
I think this deserves another round:
Drewbot said:
I love the idea that burning a Koran will incite the 'non-radical' muslims.

Someone who decides to kill people, because they burned a book, is a radical.
Click to expand...

I find this to be an extremely important observation. If a moderate Muslim somehow turns into an extremist because an idiot congregation in Florida is burning the Koran, then it's just pathetic (perhaps even culturally pathetic?).
 
Last edited:
westprog said:
I fail to see how Jones can be an insensitive boob and have Myers be sensitive.
Click to expand...
I never said Myers is sensitive, mainly because I don't think he is, nor do I think it is relevant. What else I did not say because--though true--it is irrelevant, is that Jones is more than an insensitive boob. He is an ignorant bigoted narcissist with a past that indicates his motives are far from holy and far closer to self-aggrandizing and self-enriching. It is that part which distinguishes him from Myers. Oh, and the fact that Myers doesn't burn books for disingenuous reasons.


westprog said:
Jones is reacting to the death of three thousand people.
Click to expand...

1. No. Jones is making another in a series of attempts to garner attention. This one has worked.

2. Even if I am wrong and Jones' motives are pure, the action is still the action of an ass and could predictably have the outcome it has had, an outcome by the by which has done nothing to honor the dead nor make a recurrence less likely.


westprog said:
Myers was reacting to a student being shoved.
Click to expand...
And in a fashion appropriate to the offense and appropriate to the desired response.


westprog said:
Both reactions are fairly disgusting - but at least Jones had something to get upset about. Myers had to force his indignation in order to get offensive.
Click to expand...
Nope.
 
bokonon said:
I think interest in this sort of stunt will be self-limiting. How much outrage do Americans manage these days over flag burnings in Pakistan?
Click to expand...

If Quran burnings were as common and ignored here as flag burnings are in Pakistan you'd be right, but much like the anti-mosque frenzy this is unfortunately "big news" and will end up getting people killed.
 
bokonon said:
I think freedom of speech is important enough to endure consequences such as this. It sucks that supporting freedom of speech sometimes means letting asshats have a soapbox, but the asshats on the soapbox aren't the ones killing people. Much as I disapprove of the asshats' stunts, if people die, the responsibility for those deaths lies with the killers.
Click to expand...

And as always in these discussions there's a massive difference between "You should not say that" and "You should not be allowed to say that". Freedom of speech includes the right to say "SHUT UP!".
 
westprog said:
And as always in these discussions there's a massive difference between "You should not say that" and "You should not be allowed to say that". Freedom of speech includes the right to say "SHUT UP!".
Click to expand...

It includes the right to tell someone to shut up. It doesn't include the right to force someone to shut up.
 
bobcarp said:
So you think the burning will cause no repercussions for us? If it was a matter of just offending them, then go ahead, burn baby burn. But if it is going to cause Muslims, both radical and non radical, to seek vengeance by blowing up a building, then wouldn’t it be better to just not do it?
Click to expand...

If having our troops on land Islam claims is causing them to blow up buildings, wouldn't it be better to just not do it? Whenever this argument is used, the answer is that "we don't negotiate with terrorists."
 
Pastor Jones has become less relevant by this time. The Muslims that are shouting and protesting and threatening violence (as though that's anything new) say the damage is already done, even if Pastor Jones doesn't go through with it.

At this time, there are plenty of other people that are going to have their own Quran Burning ceremonies, some that I've already linked to, and I'm guessing many that haven't made the news yet, but whether or not they get any publicity, I'm sure they will all have videos on Youtube by Sunday.
 
Garrette said:
I never said Myers is sensitive, mainly because I don't think he is, nor do I think it is relevant. What else I did not say because--though true--it is irrelevant, is that Jones is more than an insensitive boob. He is an ignorant bigoted narcissist with a past that indicates his motives are far from holy and far closer to self-aggrandizing and self-enriching. It is that part which distinguishes him from Myers. Oh, and the fact that Myers doesn't burn books for disingenuous reasons.




1. No. Jones is making another in a series of attempts to garner attention. This one has worked.

2. Even if I am wrong and Jones' motives are pure, the action is still the action of an ass and could predictably have the outcome it has had, an outcome by the by which has done nothing to honor the dead nor make a recurrence less likely.


And in a fashion appropriate to the offense and appropriate to the desired response.


Nope.
Click to expand...

The motives, whether proclaimed or assumed, are the same for the two of them. They think that the beliefs of other people don't matter, so they feel entitled to upset them to make a point.

Myers claimed that it was the over-reaction that made what he did OK. Jones is relying on a bigger over-reaction (i.e. dead soldiers being shipped home) which according to Myers' logic, makes his actions more justifiable. Myers claimed that it was the death threats that meant he was right all along. If that's the case, then Jones is just as right - more so, because the death threats are real in his case, and will be acted upon.
 
The irony of this situation is almost humorous. Jones calls Muslims a bunch of violent reactionary killers and gets called a hateful bigot for doing so; and yet here people are, hollering for him to not go ahead with his publicity stunt literally because Muslims might kill people over it.

And it gets even better. The ground zero mosque is supposed to be a matter of the right of the landowners to build what they want trumping hurt feelings of the 9/11 families. Yet somehow this pastor's right to free expression should play second fiddle to the hurt feelings it would cause. Then we say 'yeah yeah, freedom of speech yada yada, but it's still wrong because Jones is doing it just to be a dick', forgetting that one argument of the anti-mosque crowd is 'freedom of religion yada yada, but it's still wrong because they're just building it in this spot to be dicks.' Why people in this forum are actively taking sides in this holy-war-by-proxy is beyond me.
 
Last edited:
Checkmite said:
The irony of this situation is almost humorous. Jones calls Muslims a bunch of violent reactionary killers and gets called a hateful bigot for doing so; and yet here people are, hollering for him to not go ahead with his publicity stunt literally because Muslims might kill people over it.

And it gets even better. The ground zero mosque is supposed to be a matter of the right of the landowners to build what they want trumping hurt feelings of the 9/11 families. Yet somehow this pastor's right to free expression should play second fiddle to the hurt feelings it would cause. Then we say 'yeah yeah, freedom of speech yada yada, but it's still wrong because Jones is doing it just to be a dick', forgetting that one argument of the anti-mosque crowd is 'freedom of religion yada yada, but it's still wrong because they're just building it in this spot to be dicks.' Why people in this forum are actively taking sides in this holy-war-by-proxy is beyond me.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for those who were screaming free speech to explain how this isn't a breach of peace and possibly an incitement to riot. Seems they were so quick to scream that this is freedom of speech but now they became strangely silent. Wonder why that is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom