Who are the real crazies. Them?...or us for idly standing by?

And just what do you propose we do about it?

Well you could read my previous posts, Spike.

Without sounding like I'm preaching here. You could always do what we did with the Irish...compromise.
It took us both 40 years of death and conflict to work that one out.

I have been reading your posts, RT. I don't think that anyone is going to disagree with you in that this guy is a basket case and is, in my opinion, abusing his right to free speech; however, it's not like we can mobilize a lynch mob to shut him up. While he may be abusing his right and walking a fine line between expressing his opinion and committing a hate crime, he is still within the law. The vast majority of the public can see this guy for the nutjob that he is, but all we can do is shake our heads in dismay. Our hands are tied. We can't go out there and physically bar or silence him.

Yes, respect. Respect for MORAL SUBJECTS. But:

• Dead people ARE NOT moral subjects (because they don't exist anymore).
• Belief systems ARE NOT moral subjects (because they are abstractions).

The expresion "insult Islam" has the same moral meaning as "insult the metric system" or "insult basketball rules".

Sure? Let's see a football example: St George's Cross.

"St George's Cross has been adopted on the coat of arms and flags of several countries and cities which have St George as a patron saint, notably England, Georgia, Aragon, Greece, Genoa and Barcelona." (Wikipedia)

Therefore, many football teams include the cross in their badge. But.... it turns out to be that St George's Cross is "offensive" to some Muslims:

TheOPINIONATOR: ENGLISH CROSS OF ST GEORGE FLAG DEEMED OFFENSIVE TO MUSLIMS

In Spain, SD Huesca was warned in 2008 that its shirt could "provoke violence" (sic). When this was known, sales of team's shirt rised spectacularly. Because people wanted to show "respect", of course. Or was it freedom?

That article is the opinion of a British policeman and was the opinion of some local governments.
In reality the Muslim community deplored the decision and in fact said they had no problem whatsoever with the George Cross and respected the national flag of the country they live in.
They also made it known to those local governments that banning the George Cross on their behalf, despite them not being consulted on the matter, would in fact do more harm than good and only add ammunition to those who would take every opportunity to drive a wedge between their communities and others.

It was nothing more than political correctness gone mad.

That has to be the biggest pile of bullshit I've read on these boards.
Stop splitting hairs.
I'm talking about the act of burning the Koran!

Whether or not it should be taken as an insult is academic.
This is the real world. Allow me to illustrate.

http://img.allvoices.com/thumbs/imag...-the-koran.jpg

My favorite part was "Do you want to end up like Europe?"

god what an idiot.

I knew it: pearls before swine. OK, keep in your tabloid culture and forget me. :finger:

To paraphrase Bill Hicks, it's always the geniuses who are shot. Meanwhile, idiots roam free.

okay

What does anything he said have to do with tabloid culture?

And are you just playing devil's advocate with all this? I gotta know.

OK, just got back from picking my son up from a para-military organisation where they have fun and play games, while simultaneously and surreptitiously being religiously indoctrinated by an Anglican church, otherwise known as The Boys Brigade.

Tabloid culture? You're the one who linked me that less than reputable source in way of attempting to back your stance with fact.

What annoyed me more was your insinuation.
Had St.George flags been lawfully banned (which they aren't) and assuming the Muslim community were offended by our flag (which they're not) you implied I was being hypocritical. Which I'm not.

I'll type this slowly Zarqabull. Read it, then move away from the computer and go and put the kettle on and sit down with a brew and chew over these words for a while;

I have nothing against freedom of speech, or the right to exercise your cultural rights.
I just happen to think that in this day and age, burning the Koran is a pretty dumb idea. No?

Is Zaqarbal of the belief that burning the Qur'an is a trivial matter? And that the freedom of speech mantra outweighs the blatant disrespect associated with the burning of a religious scripture? I basically have no religion, but, I am Presbyterian by birth, and I've learned the value of respect for other people's religious beliefs even though I find it difficult to agree with their preachings, practices and traditions basically most of the times. But the unnecessary repercussions that could result from partaking in such a narrow minded, simplistic train of thought idea is severe enough to make even the most academically ignorant person realize that it just simply doesn't make sense. What's the point to prove in doing something such as that? There is none.

This is the biggest problem I have with atheists and agnostics. They become all gung ho about how they "realized" god doesn't exist or religion is bogus. Then they are willing to just go off on it all the time to people that really don't deserve it. Honestly, those people are behaving just as bad as an in your face zealot. My ex girlfriend was like that and we always got into arguments about it. I was raised a Catholic so I feel I have a good perspective when it comes to these matters. Be critical but respectful. I don't want people to get on to me for not believing in god just like I'm sure people don't want me to get onto them for believing.

What about this?:

Do you think that is a polite way to reply someone?

No, I have my own opinion. They call it freedom of thought. And for your information, I posted the basic idea here, when I said that I coincided with Odyshape's opinion.


I told you to forget me. I have nothing to discuss wiith you. Don't address me again.

Wow, my keyboard is wet from your tears. I need a dry cloth now.

You're telling me?
I don't think so!

If you didn't like my response to your link, then you should have at least tried to have got your facts right.

Comments like "pearls before swine" didn't exactly ingratiate yourself with me either.
If you can't take it son, don't dish it out.

I repeat: What I do is to separate the two things: people <--------> beliefs.

I only can respect people. Because ideas are ABSTRACTIONS. Ideas don't "feel" anything.

Suppose you are a member of the Flat Earth Society. I respect you as a person. I defend your right to express everything you want. But I shit on your stupid superstition.

-----

Morover:

Suppose we are in 1940. I would burn dozens of copies of Main Kampf in a public square, as expression of contempt. And I wouldn't pay any attention to the useful idiots crying: "hey, don't provoke them; remember we're living hard times, they are dangerous, they can kill us!!". Fuck the Islamonazis, fuck the Cristofascists and fuck the "chamberlains"!!!

One: You can't judge every situation the same. Burning Mein Kampf and burning the Quran require completely different considerations.

Two: Ideas are abstractions, but people are intrinsically tied to those ideas. If you respect a person, by default you must respect the majority of ideas he comes up with.

Don't play the fool, boy. I don't give a damn about your teenager jokes.

*standing ovation*

It depends on the ideas, the person...

As I said before, my general rule would be "live and let live". I said in normal circumstances my attitude before bigots would be INDEFFERENCE, not a gratuitous provocation. I just ignore them.

But, what happens when bigots' pretension is to breake that rule?. Then it changes everything. That's the heart of the matter. Islam doesn't tolerate the separation between religion and politics. It's not religion "like any other".

In most days and ages really.

I won't disagree with that, but more so now.
Burning a religious book in the middle ages wouldn't have got the same media attention as it does these days.
Now it's literally only hours before you can wip up an international suicidal bombing campaign. ;)

To separate the two is to separate a man's ideas from himself. How can you possibly do that, when the ideas in which he believes shapes and constructs his very etiquette of thinking. What you believe and who are you are, are not two parallel dimensions but rather two dimensions that overlap one another. Your attempt at faux intellect is weak.

You have, a cat. As your avatar. And you post pictures of cats. Facepalming. In an attempt at humour. The statement above is one that you are not in a position to type.

Burning a qur'an doesn't seem like a very nice thing to do IMO.

I continue to side with Zaqarbal that freedom of speech allows the destruction of books. The right to protest through burning objects you own (even bras!) should continue to be protected, regardless who is offended. Kitten-man, you've got my vote! :)

Religious freedom means that people can follow their beliefs without preventing others from following their own (or lack thereof), as long as all actions are non-violent. Although many conservative Muslims apparently believe the Quran is the actual word of god, this does not mean that other people have to treat the Quran as if they were conservative Muslims. The same is true for any book about any belief system.

Also, note that there are Muslims who support absolute freedom of speech/expression and encourage other Muslims not to react with violence to a Quran burning:

What do you see as the difference between burning Mein Kampf and burning the Quran? Both actions would risk violence by some of the people who revered those books. Both actions should be allowed as freedom of expression.

The U.S. is at its strongest when it does not give in to pressure to violate freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Just like people should be able to build a Mosque near Ground Zero, people should be able to burn the Quran. I feel our country's ability to protect people so they can coexist peacefully while having and expressing very different beliefs is our greatest strength as a society.

No, many people think it isn't nice. There would certainly be more constructive ways to express the truth that some Muslims resort to violence very quickly...just like some people of all religions (as well as non-religious people) resort to violence.

But I am glad this minister has the right to express his views in a non-violent fashion that does not directly physically harm anyone. I'm glad the U.S. has not made offending people illegal...though if it did, I could have the law on my side in stopping all you animal eaters. :D

My thought on the matter: who cares?
If the people are going to burn Qu'rans then they are going to burn them.
If the Taliban were going to burn Bibles then they would burn them.
Everyone should see the blatant stupidity in these actions.

The real question: is this even really an issue?
One that should be publicized nationally?
The press should focus on important issues, not controversial attention-getters like "Qu'ran burning" and "Ground Zero Mosque."
But why stop when they're so successful?

You don't remember the Muslim reaction and resulting fallout to the Danish Mohammed Cartoons, do you?
I'm not saying we should walk on eggshells out of fear of pissing Muslims off or anything... but seriously... if you know something is going to cause aggression and provoke violence, you stay the hell away. The stupidity is this guy using the first amendment as justification for making a stupid move. What that does is not only cause problems, but paves the way for more rules and laws to be put into place to limit your freedoms anyway... Use your rights in a way that doesn't screw it up for everyone else.

uh...yes. why are all of you morally outraged all of the sudden? where is r/t and dr seuss' moral outrage at bible burnings that happen all the time, for no other purpose than shock value? because a handful of muslims across the world are threatening violence, this is suddenly an unconscionably offensive act, that you would go so far as to call a crime? what a bunch of ninnys you are.

and as far as i can tell, zaqarbal's is the enlightened position on freedom of speech/expression since the late 1700s. maybe some of yall need to catch up?

Maybe yall need to live in the 21st century.

Fark me! Just ban all forms of religion that way there'll be none of this bullshyte carry on

check. what was i supposed to realize when i got here?

Dunno?

i thought maybe you were implying that i would see your point. dunno seems more appropriate.

Something along the lines of being a condescending smug git? If this really is about the Age of Reason and 18th century enlightenment you should read some Thomas Paine and consider what his opinion on the matter would be.

I don't see what this guy is doing as freedom of expression as the reason he's doing it is purely as an offence towards the freedom of religion for followers of Islam. Is Rev Jones exercising a protected right in treading on the rights of others? Being free from persecution is exactly that, be it from the Government or your fellow citizen. Labelling all Muslims as the perpetrators of 9/11 and burning their religious text is persecution. It's an attitude and speech that incites hatred towards Muslims and by proxy breeds racism against asians of Middle Eastern descent, whether they be Americans themselves or foreigners. Regardless of whether or not he's allowed to go ahead with it, the only reason he's doing so is because of the protracted media fuss it's generating. If people ignored him as the hicksville, inbred moron that he is it really wouldn't be causing anywhere near as much of a problem as it will do.

Maybe if you cared that much you'd start a thread on it and then they could voice their opinions? Or would you rather every time any vague subject is brought up people list every single one of their moral indignations for the purposes of completeness?

I often wonder this because I think Bill's right. You're fully allowed to cover Mother Mary in elephant dung and call it art, but we're not allowed to portray Mohammad at all.

Personally I'm not bothered by any of this, but if you think Jones is well out of line, then your ire should be directed at the Media covering it. And protesters should go down to block cameras.

I'm also of the view that "I just happen to think that in this day and age, burning the Koran is a pretty dumb idea. No?".

My opinion is that this is not about what's 'right' or what's 'wrong'. It has nothing to do with 'freedom of expression' or any other philosophy. It's just purely for the sake of common sense! It would offend me the least regardless of which religious texts are burnt, but there are religious fanatics out there ready to pounce on even the slightest of opportunities in the name of 'reason' and 'god' to continue this 'holy war' against the west. And surely, putting people's lives in danger doesn't seem like a good idea. I do understand the importance of religious tolerance to be cultivated globally and that people should have a stronger mind so that such events doesn't warrant a violent response, but how would it in anyway change the terrorists?! Surely, there are better ways to get this point across.

YouTube - Bill Maher & Ann Coulter debate

It seems they separate the two things, don't you think?