Consolator

...

Does he want the troops in Afghanistan to get bombed? Really? You want to give other Muslim countries more reason to hate us? This is petty at best.

I agree with the previous posters, this is going to create a massive **** storm. I doubt he realizes the ramifications of this. He has the right to do this, but I would strongly discourage him to carry this out.

Am I the only one that thinks this (seemingly) rapidly spreading Islamophobia is unsettling?

Zaqarbal

If the integrists bomb troops or civilians because of this quran-burning, THAT is the main problem. If you don't see this, you're like one of those sexists who make excuses for a rape when saying "she provoked him".

-----

Let's see the facts:

• In a country of 310 million people, ONE person wants to burn a Quran.
• If you burn a Quran, certain people will try to attack your WHOLE COUNTRY.

Now I ask you guys: Which one is the more morally important to you?

Why the f**k you focus all your attention and energy on the first one and forget the second? Do you have any moral judgement to do regarding the second fact? No? Does it cause any interest to you? No? Really? Nobody has said anything about the huge inmorality of that violence. No one. There only have been mentions to the "strategic inconvenience" of the burning, but no moral opinions about the integrist violence. And that's pretty disappointing, especially considering this third fact:

• The latent threat exists and it will continue existing, whether Jones burns a Quran or not.

Another key point has to do with access to information and democracy (or lack of it). Since some years ago, there are several videos on YouTube showing a Quran burning. Why haven't there been riots and demonstrations due to them? Because regarding access to information, there's a huge difference between developed and undeveloped countries. In Europe, America, Japan, South Korea, Australia, etc. our information sources are very diverse: TV, radio, written press and, especially, Internet. On the contrary, in countries like Pakistan, Iran or Sudan, people receive information "in the old way" and, in addition, there's a strong use of it by the political power.

Thus, in those countries, in the practice it's the rulers who decide what, when and how the socially-influential information is finally received by the population. So they make a selective political use of denunciations, protests and satires against Islam, by choosing a certain case, a certain moment and a certain way to present the information, in order to satisfy their political purposes of the moment.

Think about the last five or four years. Imagine a Pakistani, Iranian or Sudanese journalist strongly connected to the country's Establishment. Imagine that, in a certain moment, for some political reason, some Muslim rulers want to adopt a belligerent position against the West, and they wish to convey the impression of a strong popular anger, in order to put pressure on other/s country/ies. Imagine the journalist receiving a phone call from a high-ranking official: "Man, we need your help; search for some offensive Western stuff there and write about it". Imagine the journalist reviewing hundreds of Western publications, and finally choosing some Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad (although they were published 11 months before). Or, also, imagine the journalist surfing the web and watching YouTube videos, and finally choosing a few of them in which people burn a Quran.

It doesn't matter if Jones does his pyromaniac christo-freak show or not. If the Islamic rulers want to take advantage of this controversy, they will do it, either through Jones or through the existing abundant graphic and audiovisual material ralated to criticism of Islam. If not, this will be forgotten in a few weeks' time. The importance given to this is up to them.


Conclusion: don't torture yourself with self-hatred. Keep in mind what are the primeval causes of all this matter: Lack of liberty, democracy and freedom of the press, absence of media networks, and a poor and easily-manipulated population in the Muslim countries where the tumultuous protests happen.

Don't have a guilty conscience. Regarding how public opinion form its criterion about these events, compare our modern socities with those of the upset Islamic "hotspots". There, it is the result of an oligarchy's will. In ours, we the people are freely and continuously exchanging information and opinions in an international scope. From Japan to Australia, from Alaska to Chile, from Lisbon to Moscow... everybody can contribute. So we are those who are nearest to a true cosmopolitan and rational point of view.

__________________

Consolator

You think there's only one person in the US who wants to burn the Qurans? You should meet my relatives then..

I agree with a lot of what you said. I still urge the pastor (or really anyone) to question their actions. What do you want to accomplish, and are the consequences outweighing the benefits? I especially liked your comment about how that the Muslim governments who do not give their citizens liberty/freedom,etc are the problem. I agree, but again, I ask, why would you want to give somebody more ammunition to use against you?

Edit: I would think the whole idea that violence is wrong would be apparent. I assume (though I suppose I shouldn't) that you all would agree with me. That is why I did not mention it. I think that we're going to simply have to agree to disagree when talking about the big picture of things. And just for the record, I am not for bible-burning, or any sort of Christian-equivalent.