A Qur'an Got Burnt at 9/11 Mosque Protest

[DC]

the only restrictions in my freedom of speech is Holocaust Denial and racism/Volksverhetzung.
and the only religion here not allowed to build a tower is Islam.

they maybe take over the world, but they seem to have an epic fail in Switzerland.

 

[A'isha]

You made the claim, not me. Obviously you had something in mind, so present it.

This case from 2003 involved a Methodist church saying they were immune from laws against defaming someone because while they totally admitted saying what they did, they claimed it was a purely religious matter and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the secular court system. The trial court, and district court all agreed, and the case got all the way up to the state supreme court before it was overturned.

Or this case from 2007, where a girl forced to undergo an exorcism against her will, which left her bruised and under medical treatment for depression, sued the church for false imprisonment and battery.

Law blogger Eugene Volokh said of the case "The plaintiff alleges -- and the jury apparently believed her -- that she was held down against her will. That's false imprisonment and assault. She also alleges that this physical restraint led to emotional distress damages. This is not a case such as many of the ones the majority cites, in which the emotional distress stemmed from religious speech, or shunning by the community, or other such conduct that is and should be substantively constitutionally protected. Rather, the case involves nonconsensual (or so the jury found) physical touching, conduct that no constitutional guarantee protects."

The Texas supreme court, unfortunately, disagreed, ruling that she could not sue after all, because even though they restrained her despite her entreaties to be let go and caused visible physical injury to her, what they did was done as part of a religious ritual.

I also offer this case, not because it's really similar to the case in question, but because it highlights the foolishness of worrying about Muslim sharia law in the US.

Although Wisconsin law includes a religious exemption for child abuse and neglect that allows parents to use religion or faith-based rituals as defenses in court, the Neumanns were unable to apply this exemption to their defense. Had they been charged with child abuse and neglect rather than homicide, they could have, with the trial verdicts likely turning out differently.

This inconsistency in the state’s criminal codes -- religion can be argued in defense of some crimes, but not others -- opens the door for the Neumanns to appeal the verdicts in their separate trials. It also puts the case on track to be heard before the state’s highest court, according to Constitutional law professors, child-care advocates, and experts in the field of faith-based healing.

See that? That's not a sharia law. It was enshrined into the Wisconsin State Code in 1987, at the behest of people who consider themselves Christians. Late last year, two bills were introduced into the Wisconsin State Senate...one to remove that religious defense exception from the child abuse laws....and one to remove it and to put that same religious defense exception into the wider Wisconsin criminal code, in effect expanding it.

Thirty US states have enshrined this particular Christian belief into law as a defense for child abuse and neglect.

No, that's not what you said. You wrote, "Being concerned about cases like this because you're worried that it's a harbinger of the US' transformation into an Islamized state subject to the rule of sharia law, though, is just counterproductive paranoid nonsense."

Yes, I don't think the US will become an Islamic state. You say you don't think the US will become an Islamic state, but you apparently are worried about the pernicious influence that sharia already has in our court system and our police departments. An influence that you have not only have no evidence for, the only case you have where sharia was even an issue in the defense didn't make it anywhere near as a far as court cases like, for instance, that one above where all the lower courts apparently thought defamation doesn't really count as defamation as long as a Christian says so.

Panicky overreactions to Muslim religious belief defenses in abuse cases getting smacked down hard by the court system are paranoid nonsense when Christian beliefs are enshrined as legitimate defenses in abuse cases in state codes right now!

When you can provide some examples of what you mean, please do. It still doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking around. Seriously, if you told me 10 years ago that a judge would have ruled like he did, I would have called you absolutely nuts. "Never gonna happen," I would have said. Now it has happened, and I have to wonder how many other times it has happened.

So go find out, and tell us all how many other times this has happened.

I provided evidence for what I was claiming. Your turn now.

Just like Skeptic said. Any honest criticism is treated with derision. Calling me paranoid is ridiculous. It' is absolutely foolish not to investigate this further. At the very least that judge's rulings should be reviewed. I'd review rulings by other judges. I'd have a little conversation with my domestic violence experts in the police department.

Let me know when you find some. Meanwhile, in Oregon, "Clackamas County investigators have responded to at least three cases in the past 10 years involving [faith healing] Followers of Christ church members whose newborn children lived less than one day. None of the prior infant deaths resulted in prosecution." How about investigating the judicial system there, first? You know, where there's actual evidence that they're being influenced by sympathy for that religious belief.

To call someone paranoid for recommending due diligence is, quite frankly, disgusting.

Except you aren't recommending due diligence. I'm recommending due diligence.

You're wanting to investigate our judicial system for signs of secret sharia infiltration because one crackpot trial judge in a case where a Muslim man attempted to use his religious beliefs as a defense in an abuse case got his ass handed to him by an appeals court after a single appeal.

Meanwhile, you seem remarkably calm about the fact that some Christians managed to get their use of religious beliefs as defense in abuse cases enshrined into the actual laws of two-thirds of the country!

Never said it was. Only you're unwilling to look.

Fine. Go look, then. I'm sure not stopping you.

Yeh, they are. If we were having this same conversation about Catholics, nobody would be calling me paranoid.

Do you really need me to explain this to you, or are you just being obtuse?

He said, "So if Muslims curse the Christians, then the Christians will curse the Muslims. And people will curse Allah, and Allah will hold us responsible for that."

I don't find such a "condemnation" all that comforting. "Don't do it because you'll make our god look bad" is not much of a condemnation. It doesn't say the anger is misplaced, and the implication is that you can express your anger so long as you don't get caught.

What are you talking about? The only one "catching" them is Allah, who (assuming you believe in him) is kind of hard to hide from.

This is what he's saying:

Muslim: *punches Christian* Hah hah, infidel!

Christian: Yeah, screw you and the God you rode in on!

Allah: Hey! Okay, Muslim, what do you think you're doing?

He never said they were wrong. He said, "That means that even though we may have the right belief, if we treat non-Muslims wrongly..."

Yes, you're right. He didn't say they were wrong, just that they were doing something wrong. Now please explain to me why this distinction matters.

He "condemned" fire bombing churches by reminding them that they should "protect houses of worship of all other faith traditions" so as to better spread their religion.

"...not only because of its own ideas, but also because it protected people’s rights to practise religion freely." Funny how you left that part out.

And he said all that after also saying "A certain amount of competition will always exist among religions. Good competition is to compete in good works. Bad competition is trying to undermine the other faith."

There was no condemnation of the violence for being violence itself.

Because that wasn't the purpose of his message. He's trying to break up a bar fight by soothing both combatants and telling them to sit and have a drink together.

He also told the Catholics that even though they were theologically and legally correct in their usage, they shouldn't do it because it was socially provocative. I guess in his world socially provocative means firebombing churches and rioting.

In Malaysia it apparently is, since that's what happened.

So, when the media in the USA doesn't run a picture of the prophet even though it's big news, is that out of courtesy to Muslims? Or it because it would be socially provocative? You know, riots, firebombing, and so forth?

Can you give me some examples of how the news media honors other religious taboos? That would go a long way towards me believing it's a sign of respect rather than a sign of fear.

Did they not report on the controversy? Was reprinting those pictures vital to reporting on that news story?

Should all the news reports about the "homosexual orgy Last Supper" painting in a museum in Austria and how it angered Christians have included a reproduction of the painting in question?

He said, "using the word Allah to mean the Christian God may be theologically and legally correct."


"And while you're doing that, let me go work on building a mosque in a building damaged by the debris from 9/11."

Kid gloves, that's for sure.

If you don't understand why those two things are different by now, especially since this is far from the first time that apples and oranges comparison has been made, then I don't think you ever will.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Honestly, ANTPogo, I just don't have the energy to deal with you as I would like. Fortunately, you demonstrated Skeptic's point about honest criticism perfectly. You made no attempt whatsoever to address the issues critically but instead dismissed the arguments with accusations of paranoia and foolishness.

Your court example was a ridiculous comparison. Personally, I think the Iowa Supreme Court might have made a mistake in interpreting "spirit of Satan" as being secular considering that the church also offered "spirit of Jesus" as a possible alternative. Clearly the latter is religious in nature, which implies the former is offered in a religious rather than secular context. The courts should rightly not get involved in what religious terms constitute an insult, so this was by no means a clear cut case. It was not an easy decision, and the court even said she had a "limited" claim.

That aside as a society we just don't have the resources to watch everything that rolls through the courts. Most people don't have the resources to fight decisions, so when we see egregious decisions like the wife abuse case, we have to wonder how many similar cases died on the vine. When we see outright corruption, we often find more cases just like it during the investigation. But since this wasn't corruption per se, there was on investigation. It gives me pause, and I don't give a **** what religion it was. That doesn't make me paranoid. It means I'm diligent.

Your description of the Allah instead in Malaysia is ridiculous. If you want to use the punching analogy, suppose the same incident had happened at school. How would you react as the teacher? Would you tell the student who was punched not to say what is theologically and legally correct? I wouldn't. I would tell the student that punched him that punching is wrong. Period. It's not because it makes your god look bad, it's just wrong. You just don't punch people. One party was very clearly in the wrong, and it wasn't condemned. Rauf should have called upon Muslims to raise money to repair the damages (a gesture of goodwill) and to expose and shun those who carried out the fire bombings.

The seemingly nonchalant response to that kind of violence is frightening, and to euphemistically describe riots and violence as merely "socially provocative" is pathetic.

As for showing Muhammed imagery in the media, since when is "vital" a requirement for news reporting? As far as I'm concerned, "relevant" is all that's required. If people are freaking out about imagery, it's relevant to show that imagery as well as the ensuring reaction. That's the story.

If you want to tell me that it's just journalistic integrity at work here, I'm going to shake my head in despair. These same journalists have repeatedly shown the 9/11 video footage. It sickens me seeing it knowing that hundreds of people are dying right before my eyes. I don't need to see it again. And again. And again. It's by no means "vital" to any story today, but we see it nonetheless.

Can you name some parallel self-censorship in the USA media regarding other religions? I can't, but perhaps you are better informed. Truth is, I can think of lots of things that churches peacefully protest being on the air. I can't think of anything that would invoke riots or fire bombings among the other religions. A few hundred years ago there would have been stuff but not today.

Sure, it might be journalistic integrity. But to call people paranoid bigots for suggesting that fear of violence, which actually happened in the past in response to the media publishing these cartoons, is simply unwarranted. Maybe you're right. Maybe seeing people carrying signs that read "Exterminate Those Who Slander Islam" is making the media giants think back to their journalism courses in college.

I'm not particularly interested in taking this any further. You're welcome to respond, but I can't promise a response in kind. I find it pointless.

 

[DC]

its kinda funny to hear people complain about self censorship because of religion, from a society that has less problems with violence on TV than a pair of tits. a society where you can show someone slicing a throat in great detail with litres of blood, but you get a peep when someone says ****. ETA: LOL i am not even allowed to write that word.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Yes. And?

Hitler laid out in horrific, exhaustive detail every one of his psychotic, delusional, mentally-impaired ravings about the Jews and the innate threat they represented in a book published seven years before he became Chancellor (and fourteen years before the first prisoners arrived at Auschwitz).

And yet, despite that, when the time came for the Final Solution to be carried out in accordance with Hitler's psychotic, delusional and severely mentally impaired ravings about the Jews, he never had to kill a single Jew himself; there were more than enough people willing to do it for him.

Nazi Germany is a terrifying and abject lesson about the consequences of hatred and bigotry not because of Hitler, but because Hitler wasn't alone.

That was kind of my point. Hitler isn't really the important part of Nazi Germany, there's a plethora of people like him - Lunatics screaming nonsense. The interesting, and horrifying part is that people actually listened to him.

 

[Aepervius]

No doubt you do.

Because, as we all know, being a jerk and having unpopular opinions deserves the death penalty as a punishment.

Free speech? Human rights? What's that? Nothing compared to the horrible crime of (oh the horror) "insulting Islam".

Oh, and P.S.

I'm sure you'd feel exactly the same if someone burned the Bible or the US flag. We should kill all those demonstrators for being jerks, right?

I feel the same about burning a Qur'an, as if somebody burnt a bible, a torah, evolution of specy, or mein kampf for an assorted list of reason, and when I was younger I burnt a bible and let me say it loudly : I was a terrible idiot for doing it.

Now about the US flag, not a few people pretended in the US that people burning the flag should be removed citizenship. So... ETA:I can't find the article in google but ,my GF pretend a few people were even saying those flag burning american should be shot down for treason.

And timf, assigning a blame to a whole group for the action of a few is bigotery. Taking your line of reasoning I only need to find*ONE* evil stuff the US did and hoopla, I can dismiss the whole US as evil as a group. Shall I mention the sysphilys test on black persons ? So the US is compeltely evil and all its people are evil and we should burn constitution and US flag ( for the sarcasm impaired it was sarcasm).

 

[A'isha]

Honestly, ANTPogo, I just don't have the energy to deal with you as I would like. Fortunately, you demonstrated Skeptic's point about honest criticism perfectly. You made no attempt whatsoever to address the issues critically but instead dismissed the arguments with accusations of paranoia and foolishness.

And evidence (with links) that you seem to have completely ignored.

Your court example was a ridiculous comparison. Personally, I think the Iowa Supreme Court might have made a mistake in interpreting "spirit of Satan" as being secular considering that the church also offered "spirit of Jesus" as a possible alternative. Clearly the latter is religious in nature, which implies the former is offered in a religious rather than secular context. The courts should rightly not get involved in what religious terms constitute an insult, so this was by no means a clear cut case. It was not an easy decision, and the court even said she had a "limited" claim.

And the Texas case? And the enshrining of a Christian religious belief to be used as a defense in child abuse and neglect cases in the actual state codes of law of thirty states in the US?

That aside as a society we just don't have the resources to watch everything that rolls through the courts. Most people don't have the resources to fight decisions, so when we see egregious decisions like the wife abuse case, we have to wonder how many similar cases died on the vine. When we see outright corruption, we often find more cases just like it during the investigation. But since this wasn't corruption per se, there was on investigation. It gives me pause, and I don't give a **** what religion it was. That doesn't make me paranoid. It means I'm diligent.

You're so worried about the risks of getting another scratch from a housecat that you're ignoring the bear chewing your arm off right now.

Your description of the Allah instead in Malaysia is ridiculous. If you want to use the punching analogy, suppose the same incident had happened at school. How would you react as the teacher? Would you tell the student who was punched not to say what is theologically and legally correct? I wouldn't. I would tell the student that punched him that punching is wrong. Period. It's not because it makes your god look bad, it's just wrong. You just don't punch people. One party was very clearly in the wrong, and it wasn't condemned. Rauf should have called upon Muslims to raise money to repair the damages (a gesture of goodwill) and to expose and shun those who carried out the fire bombings.

The seemingly nonchalant response to that kind of violence is frightening, and to euphemistically describe riots and violence as merely "socially provocative" is pathetic.

You don't like the approach Rauf used in trying to stop the burgeoning religious violence in Malaysia and encourage Christians and Muslims to live together peacefully. Fine.

Still doesn't change the fact that he was trying to stop the burgeoning religious violence in Malaysia and encouraging Christians and Muslims to live together peacefully.

Can you name some parallel self-censorship in the USA media regarding other religions? I can't, but perhaps you are better informed.

Like all those mainstream media news reports that I linked to in my previous post about the "homosexual orgy Last Supper" painting that caused protests? Not a single one showed a picture of the controversial painting in question.

Truth is, I can think of lots of things that churches peacefully protest being on the air. I can't think of anything that would invoke riots or fire bombings among the other religions. A few hundred years ago there would have been stuff but not today.

So, what, it doesn't count as self-censorship when the media doesn't run pictures offensive to some Christians, because those Christians are merely doing things like threatening to burn down the art museum that displayed the painting, rather than actually doing it?

I'm not particularly interested in taking this any further. You're welcome to respond, but I can't promise a response in kind. I find it pointless.

Suit yourself.

 

[Pardalis]

since when does a fatwa ONLY call for someone to be killed?

Then what did you mean by "I hope he gets a fatwa" and "put a fatwa on his Nazi ass"?

Don't think you're going to get away with it.

 

[CplFerro]

A man burnt a Qur'an today on Ground Zero on the day of the 9/11 attacks. This idiot has stones of steel.

I don't think this video is safe for work, and I don't want to get you in trouble, so click only when you are surfing in a safe zone...hence the spoiler

Qur'an set on Fire at Ground Zero on 9/11

A mischief-maker pisses off insane, wicked people prepared to commit murder for the sake of their insane, wicked religion. And, many of you are on the side of the latter! I hold out little hope for the corpse of Western Civilisation to avoid further mutilation, given the likes of you, here.

 

[DC]

A mischief-maker pisses off insane, wicked people prepared to commit murder for the sake of their insane, wicked religion. And, many of you are on the side of the latter! I hold out little hope for the corpse of Western Civilisation to avoid further mutilation, given the likes of you, here.

Who in this thread, Thunder excluded, is on the side of those that want to kill him ?

 

[kerikiwi]

A mischief-maker pisses off insane, wicked people prepared to commit murder for the sake of their insane, wicked religion. And, many of you are on the side of the latter! I hold out little hope for the corpse of Western Civilisation to avoid further mutilation, given the likes of you, here.

Please provide one post from each person you are referring to, just to back up your sweeping claim.

 

[timf1234]

Aepervius wrote:

And timf, assigning a blame to a whole group for the action of a few is bigotery. Taking your line of reasoning I only need to find*ONE* evil stuff the US did and hoopla, I can dismiss the whole US as evil as a group. Shall I mention the sysphilys test on black persons ? So the US is compeltely evil and all its people are evil and we should burn constitution and US flag ( for the sarcasm impaired it was sarcasm).

You will have to show me the statistic.
What percentage of the Western world general population was in favor of Syphilis test on black and justified it?
What percentage of Muslim population around the globe think the punishment for leaving Islam is death?
I can give you example of example of Islamic neural network versus Westerners' - not of few individuals but by statistic.
Muslims brain's operating system is severely corrupted. They have lost the fundamental distinction of god and bad, right and wrong, true and false? Their right and wrong is driven out of religious belief. Quran and Mohammad supersede anything and everything.

What percentage of Muslim general public think 9/11 was an inside job versus the percentage of the Westerner?

What percentage of Muslim general public think 2 women witness should be equal to 1 man witness?

You are correct, every nation, every religion, every civilization has its fringe elements. Nothing is perfect. But in the world of reason and science, where I come from statistic rules.

Islamic mind is still in the 7th century.

 

[kerikiwi]

Aepervius wrote:


You will have to show me the statistic.
What percentage of the Western world general population was in favor of Syphilis test on black and justified it?
What percentage of Muslim population around the globe think the punishment for leaving Islam is death?
I can give you example of example of Islamic neural network versus Westerners' - not of few individuals but by statistic.
Muslims brain's operating system is severely corrupted. They have lost the fundamental distinction of god and bad, right and wrong, true and false? Their right and wrong is driven out of religious belief. Quran and Mohammad supersede anything and everything.

What percentage of Muslim general public think 9/11 was an inside job versus the percentage of the Westerner?

What percentage of Muslim general public think 2 women witness should be equal to 1 man witness?

You are correct, every nation, every religion, every civilization has its fringe elements. Nothing is perfect. But in the world of reason and science, where I come from statistic rules.

Islamic mind is still in the 7th century.

How about you give us the percentages, and your source for each.
Followed by a justification for holding all muslims responsible for the actions of the some... a justification which is not based on bigotry.
Statistic rules? What in the name of zeus does that mean?

 

[timf1234]

How about you give us the percentages, and your source for each.
Followed by a justification for holding all muslims responsible for the actions of the some... a justification which is not based on bigotry.
Statistic rules? What in the name of zeus does that mean?

If the source or weblink is handy I will post it. But for most cases neither I ask anyone to give me the source nor do I provide. Reason: In 21st century we have Google. Google it. Don't live in the past century where one has to spend days just to find out the answer to a short question.

If anyone doesn't know or can't find out, in 15 minutes,
...the percentage of Pakistani (Total pop.: 180 million) who believe the punishment to leave Islam should be death [Google Pew opinion research poll.]
Or
the per capita income of Indonesia

then he/she is very ignorant or lazy.

Bottom line is that too many Muslims mind is still in the 7th century paradigm when compared to that of the West.

 

[DC]

If the source or weblink is handy I will post it. But for most cases neither I ask anyone to give me the source nor do I provide. Reason: In 21st century we have Google. Google it. Don't live in the past century where one has to spend days just to find out the answer to a short question.

If anyone doesn't know or can't find out, in 15 minutes,
...the percentage of Pakistani (Total pop.: 180 million) who believe the punishment to leave Islam should be death [Google Pew opinion research poll.]
Or
the per capita income of Indonesia

then he/she is very ignorant or lazy.

Bottom line is that too many Muslims mind is still in the 7th century paradigm when compared to that of the West.

As someone coming from scinece like you claimed, you know when you make such claims, you should back them up, and not with the Twoofer style, google it.

 

[kerikiwi]

If the source or weblink is handy I will post it. But for most cases neither I ask anyone to give me the source nor do I provide. Reason: In 21st century we have Google. Google it. Don't live in the past century where one has to spend days just to find out the answer to a short question.

If anyone doesn't know or can't find out, in 15 minutes,
...the percentage of Pakistani (Total pop.: 180 million) who believe the punishment to leave Islam should be death [Google Pew opinion research poll.]
Or
the per capita income of Indonesia

then he/she is very ignorant or lazy.

Bottom line is that too many Muslims mind is still in the 7th century paradigm when compared to that of the West.

You are making the reference to percentages as if it supported whatever your position is. You back it up.
And still you fail to explain how all Muslims can be blamed for the actions of some, other than bigotry.

 

[CplFerro]

At this point in the ongoing invasion, silence is consent.

 

[Beerina]

A man burnt a Qur'an today on Ground Zero on the day of the 9/11 attacks. This idiot has stones of steel.

I don't think this video is safe for work, and I don't want to get you in trouble, so click only when you are surfing in a safe zone...hence the spoiler

Qur'an set on Fire at Ground Zero on 9/11

I'm sure a few Qur'ans got burnt at 9/11 tower collapse, too, along with dozens of Bibles, some Wicca books, and a half dozen Where's Waldos.

 

[timf1234]

As someone coming from scinece like you claimed, you know when you make such claims, you should back them up, and not with the Twoofer style, google it.

I did not know I am dealing with very ignorant people in this subject.
Anyway, here it is. [You should try your own sources as well - multiple sources]

http://www.chowk.com/ilogs/74371/51514

 

[timf1234]

You are making the reference to percentages as if it supported whatever your position is. You back it up.
And still you fail to explain how all Muslims can be blamed for the actions of some, other than bigotry.

"Never say Never Again"
corollary, never say "All", "None", "Perfect", "100%"

I never said all Muslims.
Overwhelming majority of Muslims neural network is infected by Mohammadian Memetic mental virus.