Various religions denounce Koran burning. No one showed.

[Sukerkin]

To repost what Tez linked to earlier, for a view from the other side of the Atlantic, this is how the on-line BBC is covering the matter:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11223457

Have a read and see how it gels with your own thoughts and experiences.

For me, as a personal observation, it is yet another log on the fire of my certainty that the human race would be far better off evolving out of it's need to place faith in invisible sky-friends ... such faith all too requently leading to mutually destructive conflicts over whose non-existent fantasy is the 'true' one.

One day, perhaps - if we survive that long as a species.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Afghan politics are complicated, there are people there who don't wish to fight the Allies but can be forced to by various means. It can be threats to family etc or it can be pressure exerted by religious leaders and tribal leaders. The pressure to be seen as a 'good' Muslim and to protect their families can make someone who isn't interested in fighting be made to fight and kill. It would be 'see what these people are doing to the Koran, how you can stand there and do nothing' etc etc. Its been used in various situations before, in wartime Germany for example, as a 'good' German and one who is afraid of the authorities, quite rightly of course, they would denounce neighbours and people they knew were Jewish, communists, trade unionists etc. It's hard to stand against especially if you fear for your family so you go with the 'proof' that the Allies are your enemies and deserve to die because of the way they treat the Koran. You can even justify it to yourself and end up believing it.
The religious gatherings in Afghanistan will be full of fervour against this burning, its easy to whip up the young and foolish and fervant, it would be hard to disgree and harder still not to be called to 'action'. Brave men may well but it will be the end of them for sure. Afghanistan is a tribal society, an individual doesn't do well if he goes against the tribal thoughts and actions.

So the question in this case then becomes, are we fighting against Muslims or the Afgani culture? Or is it a combination of the two that is the problem (for us)?

I still would find it interesting that one would defy one's deeply held religious tenets (as it is continually said that Islam is a religion of peace, and such as al'queda is an extremist minority) due to the burning of a religious text. They would rather be condemed to a life in hell for defying Allah's commands for something they honestly believe to be wrong then to martyr themselves standing up against the evil Islamists.

 

[CoryKS]

Because that specific minority are the ones who are currently fighting your troops pretty hard, and they want to kill them bad enough that they think nothing of strapping explosives to their body and setting them off, just for the chance of taking some of the troops with them.

It's like ... most people who own and drive a motor bike are law abiding citizens. And only a truly small minority are hells angels. But if you are in a situation involving lots of those in close proximity, then anything that will just annoy or insult motor drivers in general, will probably get those hells angels pissed off to the point where they go out of their way to be even nastier to you than they already were.

A general minority is not mutually exclusive with a local majority. And if you are near that local majority, then it might be a problem for you if your known friends make them very angry.

Does that make sense?

We've been told that the small minority we're fighting are doing it for political purposes, NOT for religion. Some folks have devoted a lot of time on this forum to convince us that Muslims are no more violent than little baby duckies. But at the same time, we are to understand that some podunk church thousands of miles away from them is capable of transforming them into rage-filled murderbots?

I think that the folks here who continually emphasize the peace-lovin' tendencies of Muslims don't really believe that. I think the're just scared ******** of them. And I think that the evidence shows that the extent to which an atheist will white-knight your religion is directly proportionate to the amount of violence you're willing to bring to bear. Maybe there's a lesson there for other religions who feel that they don't get the same degree of consideration. Just a thought.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

But I thought that the vast, vast majority of Muslims were peaceful? If such an infinitesimal minority are violent, why should our soldiers be at risk?

The vast majority of bees do not sting people. If you walk up to their hive and start beating it with a stick, you may get a sting or two.

To be more blunt; putting American and coalition lives at risk so that if one of them is killed by a 'retaliation' attack so that one can say "Ah hah! I guess Muslims are NOT peaceful after all!" is sick, sick, sick.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Not quite scared, no. I have known enough over the last 15 years, and every single one was just like you and me. I just think that there are enough angry people already, all round the board, and I don't see ANY point in creating more angry people.

And I can turn the argument around as well. Most Christians are probably of the peace loving kind as well. But if I were to go to a conservative town in the heart of the bible belt, insult the locals and organize a big bible bonfire on a date that is important to the US (like the 4th of July or something), how do you think that will turn out for me? Or perhaps I can organize a flag burning ceremony on the 4th of July. In front of a veterans club. During a soldiers funeral. While shouting insults at them.

I predict it wouldn't end well. And if I happen to pick the wrong town, I will be beaten up or worse. So why would you expect any different from a Muslim? The average Muslim is no more or less violent than the average Christian, and just insulting them for no real purpose is not going to make anything better for anyone.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think that the folks here who continually emphasize the peace-lovin' tendencies of Muslims don't really believe that. I think the're just scared ******** of them.

Try me. Bring your lunch.

 

[MJS]

Well, almost no one.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Electi...aith-call-to-oppose-Koran-burning.-Who-didn-t


This is why people say "If Muslims are against terrorism, why don't they denounce it?" They do, but Fox News isn't interested in covering that (Nor is ABC, CBS, etc, etc). It doesn't make hot-heads angrier, so it's not news. Get it?

This guy is an *******, plain and simple. IMO, he has no concern for the well being of the troops overseas, as well as the **** storm that he's going to create, when him and the rest of the nutjobs, at his "church" (sounds more like a cult to me) burn the Koran.

We've got enough issues as it is, between the people in those countries wanting us out, the thing in NY, and now this.

 

[MJS]

But would there be any really major widespread protest/violence if they did burn Bibles?

Sometimes it seems like theres a fear based response to any activity related to Islam that you don't see as much in relation to other religions. It remins me of the Star Wars scene:

Han Solo: Let him have it. It's not wise to upset a Wookiee.
C-3PO: But sir, nobody worries about upsetting a droid.
Han Solo: That's 'cause droids don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose. Wookiees are known to do that.
Chewbacca: Grrf.
C-3PO: I see your point, sir. I suggest a new strategy, R2: let the Wookiee win.

Would there be a different menatlity if riots, death threats and actual extremist attacks and religiously ordered assassinations (a la Rushdie or the Muhammad Cartoon incidents) didn't happen whenever a Koran was burned or a cartoon was drawn?

You do have a point....I dont see Americans up in arms, when US flags are burned and disrespected, but it appears that there are 2 different mentalities when it comes to these people and the US.

Could it be that the US just chalks it up to people being crazy, but nothing new, when a flag is burned, but when the Koran is disrespected, holy ****, watch out.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

You do have a point....I dont see Americans up in arms, when US flags are burned and disrespected, but it appears that there are 2 different mentalities when it comes to these people and the US.

"These people?" The majority of Muslims will probably react just like the majority of Americans do to a flag-burning. Some will shrug, some will ignore it but it will bug them, some will get mad and say something, and a very few crazies will react with violence.

As has been noted before, "these people" are 1.5 billion. If "these people" decided to react to a Koran-burning with violence, we'd all be pretty much dead or fighting for our lives. All of us.

Could it be that the US just chalks it up to people being crazy, but nothing new, when a flag is burned, but when the Koran is disrespected, holy ****, watch out.

Or could it be that the news covers the crazies, and ignores the overwhelming majority of Muslims who won't kill any infidels when some moron burns their holy book, and that makes some people believe that it's applicable to the entire religion?

I can well imagine a typical Muslim person in the Middle East being told by extremists that "America hates your religion and wants to kill you for being a Muslim!" And extremists in the USA say "Yes, we DO hate you and your religion and we DO want to kill you!" And the Muslim in question decides, gee, maybe the Islamists are right, Americans do hate us. And the American screams YOU SEE? THEY HATE US AND WANT TO KILL US!

This groping for a 'gotcha' is disgusting. If the typical Muslim doesn't react to being provoked, we'll just do it some more, harder, until he fights back. Then we'll declare him a terrorist. Brilliant.

Apparently, what Americans really want is all-out war with all Muslims. Good luck with that.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

This guy is an *******, plain and simple. IMO, he has no concern for the well being of the troops overseas, as well as the **** storm that he's going to create, when him and the rest of the nutjobs, at his "church" (sounds more like a cult to me) burn the Koran.

We've got enough issues as it is, between the people in those countries wanting us out, the thing in NY, and now this.

Agreed.

To me, it seems like pure hatred and provocation. If a person does not believe in Islam, then their book should be meaningless to them. Not holy, but certainly not worth burning; it's a nothing. What motivates a person to burn a Koran? Apparently, the desire to 'get back' at Muslims by doing something one knows will cause pain. Perhaps the desire to provoke a reaction; maybe even the desire to get that reaction so that one can then claim that yes, all Muslims are terrorists, see?

The law says he has the right to do it. I expect he will. I would not use the law to stop him - freedom of speech includes the freedom to voice that speech which is hateful. I suspect that this will add more fuel to the fire and drive a wedge further between the US and moderate Muslims, which one would think would be the last thing we want.

But I suspect in my heart of hearts that Islamists and radical Christians want the same thing - an all-out religious war on the shores of the USA. We may end up getting just that.

 

[MJS]

"These people?" The majority of Muslims will probably react just like the majority of Americans do to a flag-burning. Some will shrug, some will ignore it but it will bug them, some will get mad and say something, and a very few crazies will react with violence.

I thnk its safe to say though, that 'those people' are more inclined to protest then Americans do. But as you said, some probably aren't phased at all.

As has been noted before, "these people" are 1.5 billion. If "these people" decided to react to a Koran-burning with violence, we'd all be pretty much dead or fighting for our lives. All of us.

So, all the more reason for this nutjob preacher to not be such an *******, and think about the end result.

Or could it be that the news covers the crazies, and ignores the overwhelming majority of Muslims who won't kill any infidels when some moron burns their holy book, and that makes some people believe that it's applicable to the entire religion?

I can well imagine a typical Muslim person in the Middle East being told by extremists that "America hates your religion and wants to kill you for being a Muslim!" And extremists in the USA say "Yes, we DO hate you and your religion and we DO want to kill you!" And the Muslim in question decides, gee, maybe the Islamists are right, Americans do hate us. And the American screams YOU SEE? THEY HATE US AND WANT TO KILL US!

This groping for a 'gotcha' is disgusting. If the typical Muslim doesn't react to being provoked, we'll just do it some more, harder, until he fights back. Then we'll declare him a terrorist. Brilliant.

Apparently, what Americans really want is all-out war with all Muslims. Good luck with that.

Can't argue with that.

 

[Empty Hands]

I think that the folks here who continually emphasize the peace-lovin' tendencies of Muslims don't really believe that. I think the're just scared ******** of them. And I think that the evidence shows that the extent to which an atheist will white-knight your religion is directly proportionate to the amount of violence you're willing to bring to bear.

Nonsense. It isn't the "atheists" who are so pants-pissingly scared that they've turned their entire country upside down to fight the "terrorists". It isn't liberal groups who are demanding absurd levels of security, torture as a means of war, the degradation of law and civil liberties and all the rest of the nonsense that has been done in the name of "fighting terror." It isn't civil liberties groups like the ACLU who are so terrified of the superhuman prowess of a broken shell like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that they don't even want him on American soil for his trial for fear of what will happen.

One thing atheists do know though is that religious tolerance is crucial for their continued well-being. They would do the same if it was the Amish or some other Christian group being singled out. If the Muslims become an acceptable target, then so will the atheists. It's inevitable.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

One thing atheists do know though is that religious tolerance is crucial for their continued well-being. They would do the same if it was the Amish or some other Christian group being singled out. If the Muslims become an acceptable target, then so will the atheists. It's inevitable.

I give you +1 for that and QFT.

If I could offer a purely subjective opinion, it has been my observation that Islam today is about where Christianity was a few hundred years ago in terms of dealing with a secular world. That's a problem, and one that Islam needs to come to terms with very quickly. In many cases, it's happening, and happening well. However, it appears that the overall slide towards secularization of Middle Eastern governments has halted - perhaps temporarily, perhaps permanently - and one of the causes of that halt has been our (the US and the West in general) interference. In our desire to 'export democracy', we have stirred up a lot of opposition.

In many ways, the radical Islamists who object to the Westernization of their culture are not unlike (yes, I know some don't want to hear this) the people in the USA who object to immigration by Muslims and Hispanic low-wage workers on the grounds that it is 'destroying our culture'. Yeah, they have the same fear. They're more violent in their objection, but their fear is the same. Loss of culture, loss of identity. The object to this, and they lash out at the object of their frustration. This is similar to what is happening here.

Terrorists use fear as a weapon; not just fear of THEM, but fear of what they wish to destroy. This is not as well understood. The Islamists want Americans to fear them, yes. But they also want the US to fear ALL Muslims (and this appears to be working). And they want ALL Muslims to fear the US. In this, the Islamists have found ready allies in the radical Christians who plan to burn a Koran in order to demonstrate their hatred and incite a reaction. Both want nothing more than for fear and hatred between ALL Christians and ALL Muslims to be maximized.

Does this make Christians who advocate burning Korans terrorists? Well, it makes them willing partners to Islamist terrorists. So yeah, kind of.

I would ask the pastor of the Dove Outreach Center what his goal is. What is it he intends to accomplish by burning a Koran? Just state the goal please; the intended outcome. He will be pleased if X happens. What is X?

 

[Empty Hands]

However, it appears that the overall slide towards secularization of Middle Eastern governments has halted - perhaps temporarily, perhaps permanently - and one of the causes of that halt has been our (the US and the West in general) interference. In our desire to 'export democracy', we have stirred up a lot of opposition.

Very true. This is yet more blowback from the Cold War. Installing the Shah was a Cold War move, but the man proved so brutal and unpopular, that the people turned to those offering a "holy" solution. Of course, the new boss is basically the same as the old boss, but people are always willing to believe differently in the beginning.

Corrupt and brutal but basically secular governments in Egypt and Palestine have also either been replaced by or are threatened by religious parties. The secular pan-Arabist movement of the 70's is almost completely gone, religion has taken its place. Then there are countries like Saudi Arabia where the King has grabbed the religion tiger by the tail and in the process exported Wahhabism all over the world. He can't let go now, and his position is more precarious than most people realize.

You can't exactly blame the people for turning to religious parties. The secular governments are demonstrably bad and making their lives worse, and the religious parties offer both a change of government and a "return to morality", a call that is popular all over the world, including here.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Very true. This is yet more blowback from the Cold War. Installing the Shah was a Cold War move, but the man proved so brutal and unpopular, that the people turned to those offering a "holy" solution. Of course, the new boss is basically the same as the old boss, but people are always willing to believe differently in the beginning.

Corrupt and brutal but basically secular governments in Egypt and Palestine have also either been replaced by or are threatened by religious parties. The secular pan-Arabist movement of the 70's is almost completely gone, religion has taken its place. Then there are countries like Saudi Arabia where the King has grabbed the religion tiger by the tail and in the process exported Wahhabism all over the world. He can't let go now, and his position is more precarious than most people realize.

You can't exactly blame the people for turning to religious parties. The secular governments are demonstrably bad and making their lives worse, and the religious parties offer both a change of government and a "return to morality", a call that is popular all over the world, including here.

More examples - the former Yugoslavia, the former Soviet Union (Chechnya and the 'stans), China (Uygur and Turkestans), and Somalia.

We're facing a growing worldwide Islamist threat. While some would say that proves their point, the problem is that continuing conflate the average Muslim with Islamists makes the situation worse, not better.

 

[Tez3]

So the question in this case then becomes, are we fighting against Muslims or the Afgani culture? Or is it a combination of the two that is the problem (for us)?

I still would find it interesting that one would defy one's deeply held religious tenets (as it is continually said that Islam is a religion of peace, and such as al'queda is an extremist minority) due to the burning of a religious text. They would rather be condemed to a life in hell for defying Allah's commands for something they honestly believe to be wrong then to martyr themselves standing up against the evil Islamists.

Thats very much hit the nail on the head. I hate to use the word primitive but basically that's what much of Afghans society is hence the way women are treated and the way they look at the world. It's an intensely tribal society to whom we have given ourselves up as the common enemy which is uniting them for the time being. Their belief in Islam is also a product of who and what they are. An American Muslim will be very much an American, educated, into things most American are, his politics will be American, his very way of thinking American so his reading of the Koran and his discussions of it will take the peaceful, more thoughtful track, the educated track if you like. The Afghan tribesman will take the track he is given by his Iman. Having no education other than that given by Imans coloured by the tribal traditions older then Islam I doubt they see themselves as disobeying Allah. Standing up and disagreeing with the majority gets you killed in Afhganistan or at best exiled.

Islam has as many sects nearly as Christianity, it's not one big happy family, to bracket all Muslims the same would be like lumping all the various denominations and sects of the Christians together and no one does that.

 

[Tez3]

Very true. This is yet more blowback from the Cold War. Installing the Shah was a Cold War move, but the man proved so brutal and unpopular, that the people turned to those offering a "holy" solution. Of course, the new boss is basically the same as the old boss, but people are always willing to believe differently in the beginning.

Corrupt and brutal but basically secular governments in Egypt and Palestine have also either been replaced by or are threatened by religious parties. The secular pan-Arabist movement of the 70's is almost completely gone, religion has taken its place. Then there are countries like Saudi Arabia where the King has grabbed the religion tiger by the tail and in the process exported Wahhabism all over the world. He can't let go now, and his position is more precarious than most people realize.

You can't exactly blame the people for turning to religious parties. The secular governments are demonstrably bad and making their lives worse, and the religious parties offer both a change of government and a "return to morality", a call that is popular all over the world, including here.

And who made the Saudi 'Royal Family' and who divided up the Middle East into sections putting people on thrones that didn't exist, making borders where there were none? The Allies did after the First World War, we reap what we sow.

 

[crushing]

Related to the article in the OP about the networks not showing-

One of the local news channels did a kind of matter of fact report on the "International Burn a Koran Day" event being put on by a church in Florida. They also included a clip of Gen. Petraeus' comment about the possiblity that it might harm US Troops. Like I said, it was all done matter of factly, like it wasn't THAT big of a deal and zero commentary.

That segment was immediately followed by a "smoking puppy" story that included comments of outrage and disgust from across the country that the owner would subject this poor puppy to cigarettes. They really got into this segment.

I swear it was like Terry Gilliam produced that news to make a societal point about how effed up our priorities have become.

 

[xJOHNx]

Not necessarily. That would be to make the assumption that Christians (or these ones in particular) believe that what the Koran quotes that Jesus says is what he actually said.

If not, to them they aren't denouncing Jesus' word, and in fact are burning a heretical book.

Nope, has been identified by multiple specialists in the matter as the words Jezus said (and also were taken over from the manuscripts of his apostle's, same as certain parts of the bible can be traced back to the Torah).

Is what you're telling me that the burning of a religous book can incite a normally peaceful person who isn't interested in fighting the Allies to go out and kill a whole bunch of people?

As I posted in another thread. You only need 1 person to incite the spark and the fire (in this case a mob) will spread. When in a mob or when commanded by a superior, people WILL do extreme acts without questioning them (ref: milgram experiment).

Also: the people who want to command a mob (the leaders) are not going to say: "Them lot is burning our Holy Book! Blimey, we have to do a march to Kabul! That will show 'em!!"*
No, just like in any war/struggle, the guys in charge will say something along the lines of: "The white bastard with his false Messiah wants us to convert! That's why they burn our book! We need to smash them down because their white Devil-God wants us to kiss a goat's behind!"*
(that last piece I added because it shows how easy it is to subvert a mob into a voilent killing force. As has been shown in the past...).

Not to forget that Afghanistan is actually a land that is still heavily influenced by the Tribal feelings/rules. This is a very complex matter that we hardly can grasp as Westerners.
EVERY war is about power. Money, politics, land, it all comes down to pure power.
And the current situation just redefined the chessboard of politics overthere! The tribal leaders that followed the allies and those that went along with a minor ******* organisation like the Taliban.

We expect them to be like the Western world... but truth is, that region is FAR FAR away from anything remote to a Western World (except drugs, hookers and weapons ofcourse).
But than again.. When I see things like this:

I often wonder if we are really that advanced as we claim to be..
(except for the part that such high quality stickers are pretty advanced, the message is still quite macho, naive and neaderthalistic).

* in Urdu or Farsi ofcourse..

edit: I see alot of people just said the same thing as me, but more elaborated (as I'm not a native speaker). Thanks Tez

 

[Archangel M]

Thats a photoshop job if I ever saw one.