Qur'an burning

[faeriefruitcake]

That bigot went ahead and burnt a Qur'an. I hope Jesus revokes his license and books him a trip to a lake of fire.

Which is the politist thing I can think to write about now. The world is full of turmoil and pain and he just threw a whole lot of petrol on the fire.

Yes, he's a twat and probably a bigot but not as much as the people that murdered innocent civilians in a rage because of a poxy book !

And if that makes be a bigot too I really don't care.

Sorry I do appreciate that 'poxy book' was very disrespectful but I am cross. Not cross enough to kill anyone though.

I thought that he agreed to stop the book burning? Wasn't it in the news a few months ago and President Obama asked him not to, and he agreed to meet with an Imam at Ground Zero as the objection at the time was a mosque being built there?

If your faith is so weak you feel compelled to murder random people because someone burned a copy of the book of its doctrine, then there's something really wrong.

Is it not Koran not Qur'an ?

Koran was the old Anglo centric spelling, the accepted spelling nowadays is Qu'ran, its like Mumbai instead of Bombay or Beijing instead of Peking.

Pastor Jones (?) said he categorically wouldn't burn it, then a few months later he does. He just wants to publicise his tiny church and doesn't care who gets killed. He has to bear some responsibility.

'He has to bear some responsibility.'

He doesn't have to do anything.

You have to really, really question people who murder strangers because someone burned a copy of a book with their faith doctrine (or a flag or an effigy, for that matter).

That's completely warped.

As expat said. TJ is an shameless publicity seeker but he does not have responsibility. Those who try to pin it on him are excusing the murderers of their direct responsibility.

I think you can spell it either way. It was not a very sensible move of the pastor and I don't think it was portraying christian values but OOH it doesn't equate to people being killed in retalliation. Mediaeval scary mindsets.

Think it's possible to stir up racial/religious hatred. We don't know how it was reported, but imagine that an impression was given that this preacher was portrayed as speaking for the majority rather than the truth of the matter which is that he is a pastor at a very small church.

'Think it's possible to stir up racial/religious hatred.'

More than one imam has preached hatred, sometimes quite explicity, in the UK without the result that people went around randomly murdering others.

I don't want to live in a place where people are punished for burning books (or flags, or effigies, bras, etc.) because other people were so offended by it they killed someone else.

The only guilty parties are the murderers, IMO.

It's like that whole frame of mind that certain forms of music are responsible for school-shooting, so let's censor it all.

Or, binge-drinking is behind a lot of crimes, so let's ban it for everyone.

I still think he has to bear some responsibility. He was told what would happen, and agreed not to do it then went back on his word.
It is as if I agreed to give/sell someone poison if they told me they would use it to poison the reservoir for the local town.

It might not be the same level of guilt as the person who poisoned the water, but I would still bear responsibility. If I let you commit a crime, or even provoke you to commit a crime, then I bear some moral responsibility.

Lets also be honest here, it is crucial that he is American, where they can imprison you for burning their flag. So it is a deliberate act of contempt on a religious group. They know much more than us Brits exactly how the Muslim's will see this act. (Its the same reason they have done awful things to the Koran/Qu'ran in Guantanamo.)

BTW I don't say ban music, but I do say restrict guns. Also reasonable drinking laws lead to less crime, so maybe we have moved in the wrong direction?

'it is crucial that he is American, where they can imprison you for burning their flag. '

No they cannot and will not. That is an exercise of someone's First Amendment right.

What's crucial is that this is the first proponent of the nation's written Constitution because it was in direct opposition to how things were when they were under British rule, where you could be hanged for writing leaflets critical of the government, not to mention burning a flag, tried in abstentia for treason, found guilty and a bounty placed on your head, which actually happened. All for speaking out against the government. Keep in mind that it used to be treason to speak ill of the King at all.

The ONLY people who bear any responsibility are the perpetrators of the crime.

There was a case a few years ago where burning of crosses by KKK actually was outside the scope of the 1st amendment as it was a hate crime. In most instances the 1st amendment is absolute, but not entirely as there is a quality threshold such as screaming, 'fire!' in a crowded theater.

'They know much more than us Brits exactly how the Muslim's will see this act.'

BS. There are 400m people there. A lot of them don't even speak English, much less care how people thousands of miles away will act. It's a huge geographical area with an enormous ethnic diversity in certain areas.

And people like The Phelps are allowed to burn the flag and stage protests at the funerals of dead soldiers regularly because that, too, is an exercise of their free speech protected under the First Amendment.

People like Farrakhan and Malcolm X have and had every right to speak how they pleased as well as the KKK have the right to march. It's a two-way street.

You must directly incite violence to be in violation of any sort.

That in CA, ilove. It was 'probed' as a hate crime not because of burning the cross was a hate crime against a religion but because a specific individual was targetted, presumably because of her mixed race, as the cross was placed near her bedroom.

Entirely different from someone burning a Bible or the flag as an act of protest.

I do not think you can equate book burning and gun/poison; selling one is allowed by our laws, the other is heavily regulated or banned altogether. (Pastor did not burn Koran in Afghanistan, incidentally.) I think the earlier comparison to someone wearing short skirt 'provoking' a rape is much more fitting. Is it 'sensible' to wear revealing clothing late on Friday night in a 'rough' area? Most will agree that 'not' (others will say it is their 'right' and they do not care a-la TJ stunt). Does it mean that the attack can somehow be excused or blame shared between the one who 'provoked' and the one who was 'provoked'? Some people think 'yes', some people think 'no'. I personally do not think any blame should be apportioned to the skirt wearer.

Islam or "some of its more radical interpretations" (as apologists would like to put it forward) allows or even encourages to slay infidels. Since I am not a muslim (nor I am a christian or belong to other monotheists religious groups), I am an infidel alongside polytheists. In the eyes of Islam since I am an infidel ,it is ok or even good to kill me. I walk safely the streets of Britain because I recognize that most Muslims in the UK do not closely follow Koran teachings in their day-to-day life. Sometimes, however, they and their fellow muslims in other countries do and we get 9/11, 7/7, blowing up of busses, trains, airports all round the world from New York to Bali under the same caption of provocation by the western actions in Iraq, Chechnya, Afghanistan, etc etc. (9/11 was due to "presence of US in Saudi Arabia" and Iraq sanctions in the time of Saddam). In actuality, these actions are directed at infidels, which should be fought in the jihad in order to build Global Halifat.

oops
"I do not think you can equate book burning and gun/poison selling; one is allowed by our laws, the other is heavily regulated or banned altogether."

Also, I am correcting incorrect spelling: Global Halifat should read Global Caliphate

I just want to add that I do understand why some people say "it is all [...insert a name...] fault because s/he/they/US/the West knew what this action would lead to". It is an easy conclusion to jump to there is a seemingly logical cause-effect link and we can all go to bed and fall asleep. Beheading are not happening here, so it is all awful, but we have our own more important things to take care of today rather than try to understand in depth what is going on in the world.

The problem is that Islam, as a set of beliefs, has elements that are not compatible with our own values of individual freedoms, sex and religious equality and tolerance etc. We should reiterate these principles and demand that everyone respects those when they are on our land and condemn atrocities when they happen abroad.

bemybebe - There are quite a few misunderstandings in your posts. Most importantly, you seem to think all Muslims everywhere are the same and that single identity is that of a fanatic fundamentalist. That is wrong.

I am fellow heathen infidel, born & raised in a Muslim country as a very vocal atheist and would you believe, nobody cared. I wasn't killed nor even maimed, would you believe. It is completely untrue that all Muslim countries are as intolerant of other beliefs and non-believers as the fundamentalist weirdos you see on TV.

You are also wrong in your understanding that 9/11 was "due to "presence of US in Saudi Arabia" and Iraq sanctions in the time of Saddam". Saddam was a secular dictator and as such had no good relations with people with a religious agenda like Al Qaeda. This is admitted even in the US where Bush was ridiculed for saying that Saddam supported Al Qaeda.

Another point is that the jihad that Al Qaeda et al are trying to ignite has nothing to do with a global Caliphate. The Caliphate was abolished when Ottoman Empire collapsed and the secular Republic of Turkey was born out of its ashes. Caliphate can be re-established without the need for a global jihad - all that is needed is for one person from one Muslim country to reunite all Muslims and get them all to accept his authority. Like a Pope, if you will. It doesn't look likely at this point in time, and not because no jihad has been fought or "won".

"The problem is that Islam, as a set of beliefs, has elements that are not compatible with our own values of individual freedoms, sex and religious equality and tolerance etc"

I recommend that you read the Quran before you make sweeping generalizations about what Islam is and isn't.

Actually, Islam is very similar to Judaism and Christianity, and in fact the God of the Quran clearly says that he is the same entity that has previously "sent down" these two main religions "of the Book", talks about major Christian characters like Jesus and has a whole chapter named after Maryam (Mary, mother of Jesus). In Islam, the directives are more detailed and some new ones are added (like, make no drawings and statues of Mohammad so you can't worship these & worship only God) and with the understanding that these are where the previous religions he sent went "wrong" (Christians worship Jesus along with God himself, for example).

Bible also has many elements that are incompatible with the values of the Western world at this point in time. The only difference with Islam is that Christianity has had its Enlightenment and holds less power over the lives of its believers. Islam is 600 years younger and so is currently going through it's Dark Ages. Remember when Christians burnt 10,000s of women in Europe as "witches"? I would say that is also a bit "incompatible with our own values" at the moment.

Its Dark Ages - stupid auto-correct.

CoteDAzur -

Both the Koran, the Bible and Torah all contain beliefs and ideas that are not compatible with morality.

Like the idea that if you think you hear god telling you to go and sacrifice your child, as Abraham did the admirable thing to do would be to go and do it.

that is so true Cote dazur and the difference is that in Islam there has been no reformation. also I suspect the Koran is subject to how it is interpreted and used and abused by its followers