Various religions denounce Koran burning. No one showed.

[Sukerkin]

I think that what might be happening here is a clash of perspectives and an abrasive collision of pride. Whilst this is a discussion forum, there are sometimes things that are better not said for the sake of general harmony.

Perhaps a return to topic might be a good idea at this juncture?

 

[WC_lun]

Free speach is protected here in the US. To force this guy not to burn the koran would be wrong and in fact give the terrorist another victory, by changing our country through thier influence. If he had burned the koran, his action would have contributed to more violence and has contributed to more hate of America. That is the consequence. While he had the right to burn the koran, WE have to live with the consequences. One of the great institutions in America is our free media. Unfortunately, the media has beome our own monster of sort. They report on news as a sort of entertainment, without an eye for the consequences of what they report. In my opinion, this pastor had the full right to burn the koran, but the media did not have to cover it in the manner to which they did. Given thier coverage, I think they had a responsibility to cover those opposed to the burning. You know, that fair and balanced thing we hear so much about, but rarely see in any media source?

For those that want to paint Muslims with the same brush, think about the number of Muslims there are. Logic dictates that if the majority of Muslims were the radical, kill-the-infidel, American hating terrorist you think they are, the west would already be burning. The majority are normal people, wanting nothing more than to live thier lives. Yes, there are Islamic radicals that hate us, just as there are Christian radicals that hate them. I believe the intelligent thing to do is give no radical group power by falling for thier hate speach.

I do think that some people forget what America is, including Americans. We are not Christian. We are not Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buhdist or any other religion. We are all of those. That is what it means to be a secular government "of the people." When you start picking out certain religions as targets for censure because of the actions of a few members of that religion, you are censuring fellow Americans for thier religious beliefs. That in itself is un-American and should be fought against as zelously as we fight against the terrorist. Otherwise we are not living up to our ideals and really are falling into the religious bigotry America was founded to be a refuge against.

 

[yorkshirelad]

Actually, no. The majority of people in Northern Ireland at the time wanted to stay with the UK, they still do, though the numbers are down, mostly because of immigration and a higher RC birthrate.

Actually I meant that there are a small number of cretins who sour the waters for everyone else. The majority of Catholics are not evil people, but there are a few who use violence and the threat of violence to gain political browny points so to speak. The same can be said for Protestants and Muslims.
I have a problem with any Christian church leader that wouldn't denounce the bombing of a "Planned Parenthood". Now if the same leadership partially blamed the victims of said bombing for the act, I would take deep offense.
I feel the same way about any Islamic cleric who states that the US is reaping what it has sown. I really don't care about anyone's interpretation of the politics involved. I think such things shouldn't be said out of care for victims and their families.

 

[Archangel M]

Someone I discuss issues with wrote:

"Moderate" Muslims are the greased skids for sharia ride. They never stand up to the crazy imams or the Mutawa (religious police). A quick check of the Koran always confirms that the nuts are right and the moderates are wrong - so sane Muslims back down.

While I don't quite know if I agree with the wording or tone. The sentiment kind of sums up the the question of why there isn't more active or at least vocal condemnation amongst the moderate rank and file.

 

[yorkshirelad]

I dare not speak for TEZ, but I believe she was referring specifically to the destruction of European cities and resulting civilian deaths. While our infrastructure and civilians here in North America got off easy by comparison.

Americans certainly didn't get off easy on 9/11. Ah, but maybe Tez knows better. She was saying that we in the US live cushy lives and don't understand the pain of the rest of the world. What I'm saying is that good people have given their lives and still continue to give them for the lives we lead in the US. I certainly live a blessed life, but I've worked hard to get the life I now live, as have thousands of people here in the US.

If Irene really believe that Americans live cushy lives without suffering, poverty and violence, I'll glady take her to see some mates of mine in East LA. <aybe she might just change her mind. There are places in LA that make Moss side look like downtown Disney. Until that time, you'll only catch me in the safety of the OC.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Free speach is protected here in the US. To force this guy not to burn the koran would be wrong and in fact give the terrorist another victory, by changing our country through thier influence. If he had burned the koran, his action would have contributed to more violence and has contributed to more hate of America.

No, it would have been the actions of the terrorists that would contributed to more violence and hate of the U.S.

Remember, it is not what happens to us, but our reaction to what happens to us that make us what we are.

I can't see how the burning of any book, with maybe the exception of a one of a kind print, could possibly justify a violent and hatefull reaction, even a religious text.

But then we both know that it would just be an excuse for them to do continue to do what they want to do / are already doing.

That is the consequence. While he had the right to burn the koran, WE have to live with the consequences.

And lets blame the right people. It's not this man, but those that would commit violence.

One of the great institutions in America is our free media. Unfortunately, the media has beome our own monster of sort. They report on news as a sort of entertainment, without an eye for the consequences of what they report.

I'm pretty sure that they count on the consequences of what they report, and are not oblivious to them.

In my opinion, this pastor had the full right to burn the koran, but the media did not have to cover it in the manner to which they did. Given thier coverage, I think they had a responsibility to cover those opposed to the burning. You know, that fair and balanced thing we hear so much about, but rarely see in any media source?

You mean how the media kept showing Obama and Petreaus were opposed to it. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/06/petraeus-warns-churchs-koran-burning/

For those that want to paint Muslims with the same brush, think about the number of Muslims there are. Logic dictates that if the majority of Muslims were the radical, kill-the-infidel, American hating terrorist you think they are, the west would already be burning. The majority are normal people, wanting nothing more than to live thier lives. Yes, there are Islamic radicals that hate us, just as there are Christian radicals that hate them. I believe the intelligent thing to do is give no radical group power by falling for thier hate speach.

You make a number of assumptions here, most of which are wrong or ignorant.

Logic, as you say, dictates no such thing. First, you need to think about the consequences of a technologically inferior Muslim country attempting to destroy the United States or other Western countries. They would be destroyed. It wouldn't even be a contest. Why do you think that we don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons. It would cause the same threat that North Korea would.

Secondly, your assumption that every Muslim that hates, and consequently wants the West destroyed, would actually take take up arms to cause its destruction. The study of human psychology refutes that. Most individuals have an abject revulsion to actually taking a life. However, it does not mean that they believe that it should never be taken, nor does it mean that they would not support those who would take a life.

Thirdly, you are making the assumption that their primary goal is to cause physical destruction. I propose that what they primarily and actually want to do is impose Sharia law upon the world, the West in particular. This does not necessarily mean the physical destruction of the West. However, if physical destruction leads the way as a tactic to implement their strategic reforms, then they will do so.


I do think that some people forget what America is, including Americans. We are not Christian. We are not Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buhdist or any other religion. We are all of those. That is what it means to be a secular government "of the people." When you start picking out certain religions as targets for censure because of the actions of a few members of that religion, you are censuring fellow Americans for thier religious beliefs. That in itself is un-American and should be fought against as zelously as we fight against the terrorist. Otherwise we are not living up to our ideals and really are falling into the religious bigotry America was founded to be a refuge against.[/quote]

Only if that religion is not bent upon the destruction of your culture.

 

[WC_lun]

Only if that religion is not bent upon the destruction of your culture.

This line alone seems arrogant and ignorant. To think that 1.8 billion people of a religion want to destroy our culture...really? Especially considering the many, many, moderates of that religion who live in the US or actually try to immulate much of our culture. Yes, there are people in this world that want to do harm to the US. For the leaders of these misguided idiots it has less to do with religion than it does personal power. To think an entire religion is out to get you...er I mean your country sounds likes someone has a persecition complex.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

This line alone seems arrogant and ignorant. To think that 1.8 billion people of a religion want to destroy our culture...really? Especially considering the many, many, moderates of that religion who live in the US or actually try to immulate much of our culture. Yes, there are people in this world that want to do harm to the US. For the leaders of these misguided idiots it has less to do with religion than it does personal power. To think an entire religion is out to get you...er I mean your country sounds likes someone has a persecition complex.

First, I never mentioned that any particular religion, though since this thread is about Islam, I can see you you might think so.

Second, what about everything else that I said?

Thirdly, how do you know that its about personal power, and not an aspect of their religion.

Once again, I find it funny that you and others think you know more about Islam then the people who were born live, breath and eat the religion. All I'm doing is asking questions. In response, I get this nebulous "many moderates" comment. If you think I have a persecution complex, let me just show you this from the Free Muslim Coalition (Against Terrorism):

The Free Muslims was created to eliminate broad base support for Islamic extremism and terrorism and to strengthen secular democratic institutions in the Middle East and the Muslim World by supporting Islamic reformation efforts.

The Free Muslims promotes a modern secular interpretation of Islam which is peace-loving, democracy-loving and compatible with other faiths and beliefs. The Free Muslims' efforts are unique; it is the only mainstream American-Muslim organization willing to attack extremism and terrorism unambiguously. Unfortunately most other Muslim leaders believe that in terrorist organizations, the end justifies the means.

As written recently by Khaled Kishtainy, columnist at Al-Sharq Al-Awsat Newspaper, "I place on the Islamic intellectuals and leaders of Islamic organizations part of the responsibility for [this phenomenon] of Islamic terrorism, as nearly all of them advocate violence, and repress anyone who casts doubts upon this. Naturally, every so often they have written about the love and peace of Islam – but they did so, at best, for purposes of propaganda and defense of Islam. Their basic position is that this religion was established by the sword, acts by the sword, and will triumph by the sword, and that any doubt regarding this constitutes a conspiracy against the Muslims."

The Free Muslims finds this sympathetic support for terrorists by Muslim leaders and intellectuals to be a dangerous trend and the Free Muslims will challenge these beliefs and target the sympathetic support given to terrorists by Muslims.

The Free Muslims encourages Muslims and Arabs to be proud of their faith and at the same time critical. The community of the faithful must now take steps to bring Islam into the 21st century. As the Free Muslims’s founder recently said, "The only way that we as a people can make a profound difference and improve the quality of life for all Muslims is if all of us make a difference individually."

Other Americans have spoken up against terrorism, but never before has this message come with such clarity from Muslims or Arabs. Muslims are the only ones who can resolve the problem of terror in Islam, and sadly until the founding of this Free Muslims, they were the only group who had not definitively spoken up against the use of terror.

So let's see. A group of Muslims found an organization because they believe that the leaders within the religion advocate violence. Not only that, but few if any Muslim groups will not speak out unambiguously against terrorism.

But I'm the guy who has the persecution complex... please! Give me a break.

Of course, what is ironic about this group is that they support a secular interpretation of the religion.

 

[Monadnock]

Someone I discuss issues with wrote:

"Moderate" Muslims are the greased skids for sharia ride. They never stand up to the crazy imams or the Mutawa (religious police). A quick check of the Koran always confirms that the nuts are right and the moderates are wrong - so sane Muslims back down.

While I don't quite know if I agree with the wording or tone. The sentiment kind of sums up the the question of why there isn't more active or at least vocal condemnation amongst the moderate rank and file.

Vocal condemnation of "crazy imams" results in death in countries other than the US. They do not have freedom of speech as we do.

I think you will hear more speech against violence by U.S. muslim citizens who do not have to travel overseas where they could be killed for their words.

We're not just dealing with a religion, but rather populations of countries lead by fanatics.

Tow the party line, or go to jail, or worse. It's nothing new, really.

What needs to stop is the association of Islam with terrorism. The people who commmited those crimes on 9/11 were not acting as Muslims. They owned a distorted view of their religion and used it to recruit weak people to do evil things.

Rewards given to good Muslims are not given for murderous acts. They are given for praying and giving to the poor.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Vocal condemnation of "crazy imams" results in death in countries other than the US. They do not have freedom of speech as we do.

I think you will hear more speech against violence by U.S. muslim citizens who do not have to travel overseas where they could be killed for their words.

We're not just dealing with a religion, but rather populations of countries lead by fanatics.

So millions of Muslims tacitly condone terror done in their name by, according to people here, a small handful of people throughout the world because they are afraid that they might be killed. If, as the pundits like to say, the murdering extremists are so extremely minor, wouldn't they be relatively easy to depose. After all, even most of the civilians in these countries have arms with which to rebel. They could speak out in relative peace because they can fight back.

Tow the party line, or go to jail, or worse. It's nothing new, really.

It may be nothing new, but the dynamics of communications and travel have changed considerably. That means that the people in those countries are not as isolated as they once were, even if they are still so relatively.

What needs to stop is the association of Islam with terrorism. The people who commmited those crimes on 9/11 were not acting as Muslims. They owned a distorted view of their religion and used it to recruit weak people to do evil things.

Rewards given to good Muslims are not given for murderous acts. They are given for praying and giving to the poor.

For them, these are not crimes or murder. For them, these are legitimate acts of warfare, however we may choose to view them.

But, please, tell me. Where do you get your expert knowledge of Islam? How is it that you know that these people were not acting as Muslims? How do you know that their view is the distorted view of Islam? From where did you gain your expertise to know such thing?

 

[Marginal]

No, it would have been the actions of the terrorists that would contributed to more violence and hate of the U.S.

Remember, it is not what happens to us, but our reaction to what happens to us that make us what we are.

Actions have no consequences, but reactions do?

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Actions have no consequences, but reactions do?

I'm talking about responsibility. I don't discount that the pastor's actions would have consequenses. But the responsibility for the death and destruction would not be the pastor's, but those who actually cause the death and destruction.

I would pose this to you, as a legal example. In the U.S. you can be forced, by threat of violence to commit a crime, and therefore absolve yourself of criminal responsibility. However, there is one crime which would not be absolved by this defense.

Homicide.

That is the sole responsibility of the person who commits the actual act.

Every free act has consequenses, whether positive or negative. Should we remove free speech in this country due to the fact that someone may commit violence due to what was said. If that be the case, then Martin Luther King, Jr. is the one responsible for his own death, and not the shooter.

 

[Monadnock]

So millions of Muslims tacitly condone terror done in their name by, according to people here, a small handful of people throughout the world because they are afraid that they might be killed. If, as the pundits like to say, the murdering extremists are so extremely minor, wouldn't they be relatively easy to depose. After all, even most of the civilians in these countries have arms with which to rebel. They could speak out in relative peace because they can fight back.

Easy to depose? How long has the best fighting force been in Afghanistan trying to "depose" the Taliban? 9+ years? Now you think the civilians there can do it with a few rifles?

It may be nothing new, but the dynamics of communications and travel have changed considerably. That means that the people in those countries are not as isolated as they once were, even if they are still so relatively.

Poverty and border control are actually quite restrictive. Many people are prisoners in their own country just by the fact they live there. I would say they are quite isolated and unprotected by human rights organizations.

For them, these are not crimes or murder. For them, these are legitimate acts of warfare, however we may choose to view them.

But, please, tell me. Where do you get your expert knowledge of Islam? How is it that you know that these people were not acting as Muslims? How do you know that their view is the distorted view of Islam? From where did you gain your expertise to know such thing?

"Expert". No, clearly you're the expert here. Clearly you have read the QURAN cover to cover, all the Hadith and are very good at educating us in this forum, right?

If you dispute what I said are the 2 greatest things you can do in the name of Islam, Prayer and giving to the poor, please do so, rather than try to attach my credibility. If you are unread in such topics, and only with to argue, I have no more to say.

If you can dispute that murder is punishable under Islam, please do so.

Al-Quaeda is said ot have around 10,000 members out of a religion of 1.5 billion. I would in fact call their view a minority view and a distorted view of Islam.

 

[Bruno@MT]

So millions of Muslims tacitly condone terror done in their name by, according to people here, a small handful of people throughout the world because they are afraid that they might be killed.

Do you expect all christians to publicly denounce every nutter who targets an abortion clinic? Or is their silence an indication of approval?

 

[Marginal]

Should we remove free speech in this country due to the fact that someone may commit violence due to what was said. If that be the case, then Martin Luther King, Jr. is the one responsible for his own death, and not the shooter.

1st amendment doesn't cover speech that provokes imminent lawless action.

 

[yorkshirelad]

1st amendment doesn't cover speech that provokes imminent lawless action.

So, what you're saying is that if I take such offense at what you say on this forum as to come to your house and kick your teeth in, your words have "provoked imminent lawless action" and are therefore unlawful. Hmmmm, good to know.

 

[Ray]

1st amendment doesn't cover speech that provokes imminent lawless action.

You need to clarify your legal theory.

Take for example: if I tell someone who has a gun in their hands "I think you're dumb" and they shoot me, then what's the law on that?

If I burn an American flag and someone who is very patriotic becomes angry and attacks me, then what's the law on that?

If I burn a Koran as an act of free speech (as an American) and imbecile reacts with violence, then what's the US constitution say on that?

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Easy to depose? How long has the best fighting force been in Afghanistan trying to "depose" the Taliban? 9+ years? Now you think the civilians there can do it with a few rifles?

You completely misunderstand the dynamic involved.

Don't you think there is a difference between an outside army and culture attempting to change another country and an internal struggle?

You seem to be making the assumption that this would be a purely military struggle, and not a struggle based on a cultural and political dynamic. One which very few in the United States understands. That coupled with a military dimension could allow those "few" (although damn near everyone in those countries owns weapons) civilians with their "few" rifles to win such a struggle.

Poverty and border control are actually quite restrictive. Many people are prisoners in their own country just by the fact they live there. I would say they are quite isolated and unprotected by human rights organizations.

No one said that those things weren't controlled in some of those countries. But you can't control the airwaves. Beyond which, you're missing yet another dynamic. Islamic terrorism isn't merely restricted to the Middle East and Afganistan. It's Chechnya, the Phillipines, southern China, Pakistan. Travellers from all over the world go to these countries. Information is spread in them in abundance which could show them the error of their ways.

"Expert". No, clearly you're the expert here. Clearly you have read the QURAN cover to cover, all the Hadith and are very good at educating us in this forum, right?

If you dispute what I said are the 2 greatest things you can do in the name of Islam, Prayer and giving to the poor, please do so, rather than try to attach my credibility. If you are unread in such topics, and only with to argue, I have no more to say.

No I have not, which is why I continue to ask question, to which I am given replies with no evidence, and are nebulous at best. You are the one making the claim. In a debate, it is up to the claimant to provide proof of their position, not merely for the other person to refute it. I'm the one damn near begging people to show me that the things that terrorists and their supporters condone are not a part of the Islamic faith.

However, I have read articles by Muslims, spoken to Muslims, spoken to those that have lived in Muslim countries, spoken to terrorism experts, read books on terrorism and Islam, listened to Muslim speakers, and a few other things.

What have you done?

But, since you choose to get all defensive about it, I will suppose that you can not prove your position, which leaves me, as the questionee, to assume that there is no proof which supports your position. Not only that, but I wasn't attacking your credibilty, merely asking for your credentials.

Not only that, but even if those are two of the greatest things under Islamic edict, that still in no way says that what modern day terrorists are doing is outside of the perviews of that faith. That is what you, and others, have yet to refute.

If you can dispute that murder is punishable under Islam, please do so.

It doesn't matter if it is or not. But that supposes that Islamic courts / Imams would consider these acts murder. That is the key point, not whether murder is a crime.

To put is another way, here in the U.S., there is a crime of murder which is punishable under the law. But not every act of homicide is a murder.

Remember, what is deemed murder is a cultural attribute. In some countries, they look upon our death penalty as murder. The stoning of women who have been raped for being unpure is something that most Westerners would consider murder. What's your point?

Al-Quaeda is said ot have around 10,000 members out of a religion of 1.5 billion. I would in fact call their view a minority view and a distorted view of Islam.

With all due respect, that shows an ignorance on your part in the understanding of modern Islamic terrorism. Your statement proposes that Al-Queada is the only terrorist group, and only members of that group are terrorists. What about Abu Sayyaf in the Phillipiness, Al-Shabaab in Somolia, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in "Palestine", just to name a few. It also ignores the non-active supporters throughout the world, such as the UCSD student that I showed.

Not only that, but you also seem to be ignoring the spread of Islam, from it's very beginning, with the sword. Islamic history is replete with a history of attempted conversion, or forced living under Sharia law, through the use of violence.

And before you start, no, that is not to say that other religions have not done the same thing at times.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

1st amendment doesn't cover speech that provokes imminent lawless action.

So then we should never allow neo-Nazi's to speak, nor the Black Panthers. Also, we should curb religious outcries against abortion, or environmental activism. After all, each of these types of speech can be said to be linked to eventual "lawless action."

You actually misunderstand the law, at least how it has been adjudicated in California. It is not speech that provokes imminent lawless action. It is speech that intentionally incites an imediate violent action. Whether you choose to believ it or not, that is a totally other thing.

 

[Marginal]

So then we should never allow neo-Nazi's to speak, nor the Black Panthers. Also, we should curb religious outcries against abortion, or environmental activism. After all, each of these types of speech can be said to be linked to eventual "lawless action."

Well, then that action wouldn't be imminent now would it?