Various religions denounce Koran burning. No one showed.

[Monadnock]

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.

No assumptions here, but you seem to be under the assumption that if you posit an impossible solution that these nations' citizens are not undertaking, it must be because they are sympathetic to terrorism.

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.

You're serious, arent you...

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.

The only claim I made, to which you decided to reply to in addition to lumping a slew of other concoctions, was that I stated the 2 of the greatest things a Muslim can do are to keep up Prayer, and give to the poor. Not a difficult claim to substantiate, if you read the QURAN. But if you wish to refute it, tell me what is greater for a Muslim to do, with sources. C'mon, you've read some books.

So, list the things that terrorists condone, and we can examine whether they are part of Islamic faith. (You may also need to define the Islamic faith, because a lot of Muslims consider it their duty to understand Islam their entire life, so we may be here a while waiting for you to enlighten us all as to what it's about...)

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?

That list is starting to read like a McDojo resume. "I've had my photo woth Chuck Norris, shook hands with Steven Seagal and sat next to Ed Parker." Clearly you are talking to all the wrong people, if you are "begging people to show you" that terrorism is not part of Islam.

But OK, I'll bite. I've also done everything you have explicitly listed, except read books on terrorism and "talked to experts" - whatever that means. In addition, I practice the faith, entered into Islamic martimonial engagement, and stayed in Pakistan 3 times (soon 4) this year alone. I'm as white as rice, and I walk freely and comfortably when I am there. Is it luck? However, I will admit, there are other Muslim majority countries I would not want to go to.

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.

Nobody's defensive here. I'm quite centered and comfortable in my position, and it is easily proven. You chose to quote my initial post. (Also, up above you state in a debate someone cannot simply refute an assertion, so I think you mean I need to provide proof, if only I were here to talk about terrorists.) You say terrorism is within the perviews of that faith. Sounds like it is your burden to provide the proof.

My posts have to do with the innocent people whose religion you scrutinize due to the actions of a few in the name of said religion.

In support, I've only officially entered the following statements:
1. Prayer and paying the poor rate have great reward in the afterlife (not murder)
2. The fanatics are few, and control/silence the many innocent
3. Critics of terrorism in Muslim countries are vast, even if you do not hear them

Everything else is your position. I guess we can stop there, the rest of your points do not concern my topic, or original post.

But let's just suppose you somehow "win" your debate. You prove that Islam is centered on violence and a majority of the followers condone this violence and intend to spread their faith via such methods. (Although, it was not the intent of the 9/11 terrorists to spread Islam by flying planes into the towers.) Oh, that's right. They want to erradicate the non-believers, right? Yes, that's right. There's a verse somewhere that talks about it, so it must be the main objective of the entire religion. So let's forget all the other ones about not forcing Islam on non-believers.

As I stated before, terrists take a distorted interpretation and use it to force others to do their dirty work. If you agree with their hardline ideals, and say, "This must be the real goal of Islam," you only help to spread this distorted view.

I guess I've said all I can, or care to at this point. I suggest carefully thinking about the issue, and maybe getting some more information from reliable sources.

Take care,

 

[elder999]

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."

Burning crosses is illegal in many locations, simply because it's intimidating and insulting.

There are, quite simply, some forms of "free speech" that are deemed to not be constitutionally acceptable. You can say pretty much what you want-protest all ya like-but certain actions are not permitted.

Publicly burning a Koran-or any holy scripture-is more of the same, IMNSHO.

 

[Marginal]

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.

You kinda miss the point.

That's the 4th threat I've gotten from a right winger though. Fun forum.

 

[WC_lun]

As a Muslim friend told me after 911, according to his faith, "Killing one innocent carries the same guilt as if killing the entire human race." That really sounds like someone who believes in using violence to convert someone...yeah that is sarcasm.

If you don't believe Muslims all over the world aren't denouncing killing and terrorism, you haven't been paying attention. While such people do not get the media attention, they are there. Heck, the imam in New York who has recieved so much attention lately is one of those people condemning terrorism.

 

[Ray]

As a Muslim friend told me after 911, according to his faith, "Killing one innocent carries the same guilt as if killing the entire human race." That really sounds like someone who believes in using violence to convert someone...yeah that is sarcasm.

If you don't believe Muslims all over the world aren't denouncing killing and terrorism, you haven't been paying attention. While such people do not get the media attention, they are there. Heck, the imam in New York who has recieved so much attention lately is one of those people condemning terrorism.

Recently, I watched a Sunday morning news program. I cannot remember the players, nor the program name. I listened as a Muslim (who's role I believe was that of a leader, whether a "terroristic" or other group I cannot recall the name), he was specifically asked about the innocent lives lost in the 911 attacks. He responded by saying that their were no innocents who died in the attacks; those who died were guilty of the "crimes" committed by their gov't (i.e. guilty for what the US gov't did) because the "innocents" voted for the gov't (that is: US is a democracy, if you vote for the wrong people then you're guilty. If if you vote for the "right" people and they lose, then you apparently have to work against them).

We cannot judge the heart of a people by the hearts of a few. We cannot even judge the heart of a person, so we must judge the action. We cannot judge those actions when they are in another country, another culture, governed by a different set of laws; only when their actions are in violation of our laws. The judgment should be no more than our laws allow.

 

[Sukerkin]

Well put, Ray.

I am saddened to hear the words of the Muslim speaker. They speak of the same type of indoctrination and lack of willingness to reason that we hear from the religiously prejudiced on our own shores.

It's a seductive argument in a way but flawed. After all, by extending the scope of that attitude, it could be used to hold me to account for the Dresden bombings for no other reason than I tacitly supported those dreadful acts by voting for one part of our present coalition government (who are in their turn the inheritors of power from those who authorised the attacks). I know that that is stretching the point rather but I think it does serve to illustrate the implicit problems of tarring all with too broad and indiscriminate a brush.

 

[Ray]

Burning crosses is illegal in many locations, simply because it's intimidating and insulting.

There are, quite simply, some forms of "free speech" that are deemed to not be constitutionally acceptable. You can say pretty much what you want-protest all ya like-but certain actions are not permitted.

Publicly burning a Koran-or any holy scripture-is more of the same, IMNSHO.

To say "simply because it's intimidating..." seems to be intentionally misleading. If you read the decision, I think you'll find that it is illegal when it is intentionally intimidating. And although the statutes may read "insulting" obviously just because something is "insulting" it cannot (only for that reason) be illegal.

It should be pointed out that the supreme court rules on a "case" which then becomes the "standard" for interpretation of a law. Now in the case of the specific cross-burning I'm pretty sure it was a burning in the backyard of a neighboring african-american man (or family).

 

[Tez3]

Academics... you elitist pissant! Tell this to the thousands of Vietnam vets who served honorably in the war and lived to tell the tale. Tell that to the WW2 vets who served in Europe and saved the **** of the British. Tell that to the brave souls who fought in Korea.

Many Americans have seen what fascism, communism, totalitarianism and every other God forsaken ism has done for the world at large and have risked their lives to preserve the freedoms we have here in the US and YOU have in what was once Great Britain.
You show understanding for Islamic cultures that stone women to death for adultery and cut the heads off of westerners simply for being westerners and yet you condemn a lone nut in Florida for burning copies of the Koran.

I see even in my absence you are still insulting me.

Saved the **** of the British? No, the RAF did that in the Battle of Britain, their bravery and sacrifice stopped Hitler from implementing the invasion of Great Britiain, the Americans didn't come into the war until well after that and yes we are greatful for their help but if the RAF hadn't done what they did there woud have been no Britain to save.

I show no tolerance of Islamic or tribal cultures that condone stoning women or anyone else to death and no I'm not afraid of Muslims or of Islam so just rein back your rhetoric for a while.

 

[yorkshirelad]

You kinda miss the point.

That's the 4th threat I've gotten from a right winger though. Fun forum.

Threat!LOL, you're obviously having a laugh.

 

[yorkshirelad]

I see even in my absence you are still insulting me.

Saved the **** of the British? No, the RAF did that in the Battle of Britain, their bravery and sacrifice stopped Hitler from implementing the invasion of Great Britiain, the Americans didn't come into the war until well after that and yes we are greatful for their help but if the RAF hadn't done what they did there woud have been no Britain to save.

I show no tolerance of Islamic or tribal cultures that condone stoning women or anyone else to death and no I'm not afraid of Muslims or of Islam so just rein back your rhetoric for a while.

You love dishing Irene, but you tend to resent it when you get it back. So, you believe that the Battle of Britain was the defining moment of WW2 that ultimately saved Britain and the rest of Europe from Nazi tyranny. I think there are many old and crusty US and Russian soldiers out there sitting in their Hoverrounds who may disagree with you. Who were fighting in Europe long after The Battle of Britain. As Germany would have just let Britain be, if they had won the war in Europe. What a laughable hypothesis.

Of course you show tolerance for Islamic extremists. What do you think this debate is about? You were saying that if soldiers get killed by Islamic lunatics, then a preacher who burns Korans is to blame. Like these lunatics are not at fault at all. You speak like they'll just be reacting to the situation because their cultural/religious belief deem violence the appropriate reaction. You even expressed the opinion that this guy should go preach in the middle east, knowing full well that he'd probably get beheaded.

I love how you go on the attack and then whinge like baby when you get it back.

Grow up Irene!!

 

[Marginal]

Threat!LOL, you're obviously having a laugh.

I figured we might as well both fudge the written word to unsuccessfully make a point.

 

[elder999]

. Now in the case of the specific cross-burning I'm pretty sure it was a burning in the backyard of a neighboring african-american man (or family).

Actually, there have been several cases-the Supreme Court only ruled that states can make cross-burning illegal. In a few of those cases, such as that of white supremacist Tom Metzger, the cross was burned on public property, or property owned by an associate of the individual doing the burning, or the individual doing the burning.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Admin Note:

Enough with the personal shots already.

If you can not debate this topic without resorting to insults, digs, and so forth, you'll find your time here cut short. Warnings and Infractions have been issued. Lets not have need for more. "Attack the message, not the messenger."

Thank you.

 

[Ray]

Actually, there have been several cases-the Supreme Court only ruled that states can make cross-burning illegal. In a few of those cases, such as that of white supremacist Tom Metzger, the cross was burned on public property, or property owned by an associate of the individual doing the burning, or the individual doing the burning.

No, you misunderstand...I'm referring to US Supreme Court cases with regard to Cross-Burning. So far as I can find the was one (2002ish) and it had to do with a Virginia law, and a cross-burning that took place in a black neighbor's back yard. And yes, the court-ruled it was legal to have such a law...of course, that doesn't say "it's absolutely illegal everywhere, always to burn a cross." Just like burning a flag is illegal in certain circumstances...

For the record, I'm against cross-burning, flag-burning, Koran burning and burning a nice steak. But I believe that the strength of the US is the constitution and the rights guarenteed therein...we shouldn't be afraid to here bad ideas and allow the public to replace them with something better.

 

[elder999]

No, you misunderstand...I'm referring to US Supreme Court cases with regard to Cross-Burning. So far as I can find the was one (2002ish) and it had to do with a Virginia law, and a cross-burning that took place in a black neighbor's back yard. And yes, the court-ruled it was legal to have such a law...of course, that doesn't say "it's absolutely illegal everywhere, always to burn a cross." Just like burning a flag is illegal in certain circumstances...

For the record, I'm against cross-burning, flag-burning, Koran burning and burning a nice steak. But I believe that the strength of the US is the constitution and the rights guarenteed therein...we shouldn't be afraid to here bad ideas and allow the public to replace them with something better.

No, I understood you. All I'm saying is that some forms of "free speech" aren't constitutionally protected.

There are only 14 states that have laws against cross burning, though-it could, in fact, be tied to Scottish Highland events, or ancient Roman rituals, among other "non-intimidating, non-insulting" practices.

 

[Tez3]

Whinging? No, chuckling to myself.

:deadhorse

I really don't take the Study so seriously I have emotional issues about what's written here nor should anyone else. It's causing good serious posters to avoid this section when actually their imput would be insightful, we keep getting warnings from mods and threads being locked because posters get choleric over what others have written, many times needlessly. Misunderstandings are very common either intentionally or unintentionally and emotions are attributed when none exist. I think from now on I shall put a little smiley face on all my posts here to show I'm not taking this as seriously as people think I do!


Elder, here's a wonderful mixing..the Scottish Fiery Cross and Harleys!

http://www.caledoniahc.com/club/clubFx.html

 

[Ray]

There are only 14 states that have laws against cross burning, though-it could, in fact, be tied to Scottish Highland events, or ancient Roman rituals, among other "non-intimidating, non-insulting" practices.

When I wear a cross around my neck, I refer to it as a "plus sign." The church I belong to doens't revere the cross.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Actually, there have been several cases-the Supreme Court only ruled that states can make cross-burning illegal. In a few of those cases, such as that of white supremacist Tom Metzger, the cross was burned on public property, or property owned by an associate of the individual doing the burning, or the individual doing the burning.

Not exactly. In Virginia vs. Black, the Supreme Court ruled, for the purposes of our discussion, that there must be an intent to imtimidate in order for cross-burning to be a crime. So the mere burning of the cross in not enough. In fact, in the same case, the Supreme Court struck down some specific wording in the Virginia statute which says" "Any such burning of a cross shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group of persons."

So the state must prove an intent to intimidate.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

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

Imminent: likely to occur at any moment.

So yeah, it fits.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

No assumptions here, but you seem to be under the assumption that if you posit an impossible solution that these nations' citizens are not undertaking, it must be because they are sympathetic to terrorism.

Not at all, although I am not sure what impossible solution that I am supposed to be positing.

I am simply suggesting that there is no good reason, if they feel that their religion is being corrupted and destroyed, for them not to do something about it, whether politically or militarily.

Remember, as you say, most Muslims believe that such acts as terrorism and extremism are evil and against the law of Allah. As there are so few actual extremists, according to your argument, there should be nothing which keeps them from deposing those that are telling them to believe such and act on such beliefs. Or, for that matter, not doing what they say, as they would find broad based support among the population at large. And this is especially considering that in most Muslim countries, most of the adult male population is armed, and presumably willing to fight with said weapons.

So, for me, the question becomes, why aren't they doing so?

You're serious, arent you...

If you think I mean the error of their ways in being Muslim, you would be incorrect. I am referring to their supposed erroneous beliefs that acts of terror and violence are condoned by the law of Allah.

The only claim I made, to which you decided to reply to in addition to lumping a slew of other concoctions, was that I stated the 2 of the greatest things a Muslim can do are to keep up Prayer, and give to the poor. Not a difficult claim to substantiate, if you read the QURAN. But if you wish to refute it, tell me what is greater for a Muslim to do, with sources. C'mon, you've read some books.

Once again, I never said that these were not the two greatest things that a Muslim could do. But, you have made the claim that the majority of Muslims don't believe in violence and terrorism, and those that do are in a minority and have a distorted view of Islam.

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.

This is a claim that you have made that I asked you to substantiate. And you have yet to do so. The point that I made can live concurrently with your statement. Those can be the two greatest things that a Muslim can do and they can still believe in violence and terrorism.

So, list the things that terrorists condone, and we can examine whether they are part of Islamic faith. (You may also need to define the Islamic faith, because a lot of Muslims consider it their duty to understand Islam their entire life, so we may be here a while waiting for you to enlighten us all as to what it's about...)

See, now you're talking. All I have ever asked for is some evidence, based on Islamic law and faith, against the claims made by Muslim's regarding terrorism and violence. But all I kept getting was the nebulous "most Muslims don't believe that" when I showed examples to the contrary. Perhaps now we can get into specifics.

That list is starting to read like a McDojo resume. "I've had my photo woth Chuck Norris, shook hands with Steven Seagal and sat next to Ed Parker." Clearly you are talking to all the wrong people, if you are "begging people to show you" that terrorism is not part of Islam.

Take it for what you will. I can understand that. I can only tell you the sources from where I get my information. As I am not Muslim, I can't really give you my interpretation of what the Quran and other Islamic texts mean. I can only go by what information I glean from others, and therefore I list my sources.

But OK, I'll bite. I've also done everything you have explicitly listed, except read books on terrorism and "talked to experts" - whatever that means.

When I refer to experts, I am referring to people who have worked in the FBI, CIA, BATFE, various think tanks, etc., who have spent many years studying and combatting terrorism.

In addition, I practice the faith, entered into Islamic martimonial engagement, and stayed in Pakistan 3 times (soon 4) this year alone. I'm as white as rice, and I walk freely and comfortably when I am there. Is it luck? However, I will admit, there are other Muslim majority countries I would not want to go to.

Thank you, that certainly does provide some, what I would consider, legitimate perspective on this discussion.

Although I do wonder why you place an emphasis on your ethnicity and safety in Pakistan. I have never said that this was an issue of race. We can certainly see that Muslims come in all shapes and sizes.

Nobody's defensive here. I'm quite centered and comfortable in my position, and it is easily proven. You chose to quote my initial post. (Also, up above you state in a debate someone cannot simply refute an assertion, so I think you mean I need to provide proof, if only I were here to talk about terrorists.) You say terrorism is within the perviews of that faith. Sounds like it is your burden to provide the proof.

Once again, I have made no such claim. I have continually asked for evidence to the contrary, primarily because I am having a hard time refuting the claim that most Muslims are terrorists with hard and definitive facts. I post evidence here that violence is condoned by them in order to get people to refute such claims with facts, and not nebulous statments such as "extremists are a minority", or "most Muslims aren't terrorists", as you and others assert.

My posts have to do with the innocent people whose religion you scrutinize due to the actions of a few in the name of said religion.

You have just made a claim. Prove to me, at least in some measure, that these actions are being committed by few people of that religion. Then we can go point - counterpoint, so that I if no one else, can gain further perspective on the issue.

In support, I've only officially entered the following statements:
1. Prayer and paying the poor rate have great reward in the afterlife (not murder)

Never disputed that, but it does nothing to further the discussion on whether terroism and acts of violence are or are not acceptable in the Islamic faith.

2. The fanatics are few, and control/silence the many innocent

A claim you have yet to justify in any manner what so ever, despite my repeatedly asking.

3. Critics of terrorism in Muslim countries are vast, even if you do not hear them

Show me where, give me sources, cite examples. All of which I have asked for, yet you have failed to provide.

What's funny is that I am supposed to believe a supposition that I can't even hear.

Everything else is your position. I guess we can stop there, the rest of your points do not concern my topic, or original post.

You haven't been paying attention. I don't have a position, and have merely been asking question, and in doing so used evidence to further discussion.

But let's just suppose you somehow "win" your debate.

Not interested in winning. I'm interested in learning.

You prove that Islam is centered on violence and a majority of the followers condone this violence and intend to spread their faith via such methods. (Although, it was not the intent of the 9/11 terrorists to spread Islam by flying planes into the towers.) Oh, that's right. They want to erradicate the non-believers, right? Yes, that's right. There's a verse somewhere that talks about it, so it must be the main objective of the entire religion. So let's forget all the other ones about not forcing Islam on non-believers.

Never said they all agreed on the intent, nor homogeneous belief in the same tactics. Never said that they all want to do anything. Never said that Islam is centered on violence.

I believe that most texts of any sort can potentially be taken out of context. I get that. And if were to make an assertion about said verse, you could, using the Quran, the Hadith, and other legitimate Islamic authority to refute it. I got no problem with that. It's what learning is all about.

But all you have done so far is to make statements which you have not backed up with facts, whether true or not. That will never convince me. And I am going to assume that since we are having this discussion that there is a purpose other then just typing on a keyboard.

As I stated before, terrists take a distorted interpretation and use it to force others to do their dirty work. If you agree with their hardline ideals, and say, "This must be the real goal of Islam," you only help to spread this distorted view.

And, once again, you have shown in no way that it is a distorted view. As a lawyer would say during a trial: you are stating facts not in evidence.

I guess I've said all I can, or care to at this point. I suggest carefully thinking about the issue, and maybe getting some more information from reliable sources.

You're making the assumption that my sources are not reliable. Why? Merely because they don't reflect what you know to be true. In fact, you haven't given me any framework from which to judge those who may or may not be reliable, unless I simply agree with your unsupported statements of "fact".

Come on, for goodness sakes, give me something to work with.