Prayers for our SAFETY here in Malaysia...

[Osmosis Mom]

:iagree: I also fail to see how this is so different than the Muslims trying to build a mosque on Ground Zero. Both groups are trying to make a statement. I think it's sad that people get so riled up about someone burning Korans, but if someone wanted to light a stack of Bibles on fire most of the world would be just fine with that. No outrage or media attention. Sad really how messed up people's thinking is.

 

I am not sure I can comprehend what you are saying. When the Taliban destroyed some old hindu or buddhist statues,m then there was indeed a world outrage, remember? Why on earth would it be OK for anyone to show blatant disrespect like that?

 

Ground Zero, mosque or Islamic Center, what's the deal with that? It is not even *on* Ground Zero, but close by. Talk about having a right to build bridges. As some might know -and some might ignore to acknowledge- then plenty of innoncent Muslims got destroyed that day in the Twin Towers. Not all the world's Muslims found it cool what a group of 20 people decided to do (and some of them were sort of lured into it, as pr. news-reports, not knowing the scope of what they were missioned to do).

[alpidarkomama]

OhMy. To use a Yorkshire phrase, that pastor is loopy. I can't see that he'll achieve anything positive.

 

Praying for you.

 

He could even get himself killed. Good grief.

[Aubrey]

So, if a wife spends a little more money than her husband wants her to one week, knowing that he will get angry, it's OK if he knocks her around a little or if he takes his anger out on their child? And it's not his fault that he does that?

 

That would seem to follow this line of thinking.

 

No one has said that the terrorists have no culpability.

 

This situation, though, would be more like if a wife pawned something dear to her dh--a family heirloom--& used the $ to buy new shoes. Really, it's worse than that, but the point is--of course this doesn't give the guy the right to hurt her or anyone else. But who would defend what she's doing? If the guy has a violent temper, she knows it, & she's warned ahead of time--then, yeah, to some extent, she's responsible for his *re*action to her abuse.

[simka2]

Racist slurs, for example. IOW, when the majority use a "right" to hurt a minority, it becomes a weapon instsead of a "freedom."

 

Sometimes a great tool (hammer) can still be used as weapon.

[elegantlion]

The act of burning a book may be protected as his freedom. However, he is not just burning a book, as someone else pointed out, he is staging an event. The event that seems to be intentionally planned to incite peoples emotions.

 

Sadly he is doing it under the guise of Christianity and claims to be a patriot. Because he heads one church does not give authority to speak for other christians or God. Because he stands on American soil does not mean he speaks for all Americans. I wouldn't be surprised if Phelps is in the picture somewhere, because that's the corner of idiocy I put this guy.

[unsinkable]

Well, it is a biggie to Muslims, but no more than sticking the Quran in the toilet as was done by the people at Guatanamo.

As for the supposedly overheated reaction of Muslims across the world, then it is akin to the reaction to Salman Rushdie's book 25 years ago; Muslim leaders were telling their followers/listeners to ignore him and the book would go away on its own. Instead Muslim "fanatics"/hysterics over-reacted and caused everyone to go read the book. Talk about reverse psychology in action!

 

To me, then it would seem logic to arrest the guy and hold him detained untill Sunday at least. He has threatened publicly to do an act that would cause in consequences and be globally misunderstood as sanctioned by our US government. Detain him on grounds of disrespecting others' religion etc., whatever statute that is, and let's keep everyone safe. And I mean this in the sense that irrational and tempered people are going to react.

 

Newsweek originally wrote that in an article but then RETRACTED it.

[simka2]

No one has said that the terrorists have no culpability.

 

This situation, though, would be more like if a wife pawned something dear to her dh--a family heirloom--& used the $ to buy new shoes. Really, it's worse than that, but the point is--of course this doesn't give the guy the right to hurt her or anyone else. But who would defend what she's doing? If the guy has a violent temper, she knows it, & she's warned ahead of time--then, yeah, to some extent, she's responsible for his *re*action to her abuse.

 

 

Please say I misread this. This makes me very sad.:confused:

[flyingiguana]

This has no bearing on what we're discussing.

 

A terrorist who is ticked off by something that happens half way around the world has no justification for murdering people because of his anger. Period. And it's not someone else's fault that he did it.

 

 

But that someone is still dead. Doesn't matter whose "fault" it was. And the person on the other side of the world who incited the terrorist could have prevented it by being sensible.

[Stacy in NJ]

I'm just wondering if burning a book counts as 'speech'.

 

Laura

 

It does in the USofA, as is burning an American flag or the Bible. It is Constitutionally protected free speech according to our Supreme Court.

[A.D.]

To me, then it would seem logic to arrest the guy and hold him detained untill Sunday at least. He has threatened publicly to do an act that would cause in consequences and be globally misunderstood as sanctioned by our US government. Detain him on grounds of disrespecting others' religion etc., whatever statute that is, and let's keep everyone safe. And I mean this in the sense that irrational and tempered people are going to react.

 

 

I find the logic in this post disturbing. Have we reached the point that we are going to restrict the Constitutional rights of our citizens in fear of what international terrorists and/or ignorant religious fanatics in other nations may do?

Jackie in AR is correct in noting that the outrage directed at the acts of this pastor seem misdirected considering the other side is threatening to kill innocents in response.

[mo2]

Please say I misread this. This makes me very sad.:confused:

 

No, I get what she's saying. Why would a person intentionally do something that they know may result in harm to themselves or others? Ok, let's not use the wife/husband analogy. It's sort of like driving through the ghetto, pulling up to a gang member, and yelling a racial slur. Duh. Of course that person is going to react negatively.

[Laura Corin]

Not all Muslims are Al Qaeda or terrorists. Why is this "pastor" targeting Islam? Why not burn a picture of Bin Laden or some other Al Qaeda leader instead? It's sort of like blaming ALL Catholics for the few Catholic priests who have done bad things.

 

He started ranting about 'Muslims', then stopped and corrected himself to talk about 'extremist Muslims'. I thought that this was very revealing.

 

Laura

[QueenCat]

I'm sorry but I disagree with what I bolded. I have the freedom to have an alcoholic beverage, and the freedom to drink as much of that beverage as I want to, but if my actions caused the death of another individual I would be held responsible. If I had those alcoholic beverage in a bar and was allowed to leave that bar obviously drunk, the bartender who served me those drinks could be held responsible. Just because we live in a country of freedoms where we have the "right" to burn any book or flag we want, doesn't mean that we have no responsibility for the fall-out from our actions.

 

I think that the possible fall-out from this man's (and his followers) actions should be a matter of National Security and I'm wondering WHY this has not been addressed by our government. :confused: Yes, General Petraeus has gone on the record stating that this man is putting American soldiers at risk, but why is that all that's been done? We have citizens of our country world wide, civilians and military, and the actions of this group will be putting them all in danger.

 

:iagree: I've been trying to figure out how to put my response in to words.... and you did it for me! Yes, it is a matter of National Security, and should be viewed as such!

[mo2]

 

Ground Zero, mosque or Islamic Center, what's the deal with that? It is not even *on* Ground Zero, but close by. Talk about having a right to build bridges. As some might know -and some might ignore to acknowledge- then plenty of innoncent Muslims got destroyed that day in the Twin Towers. Not all the world's Muslims found it cool what a group of 20 people decided to do (and some of them were sort of lured into it, as pr. news-reports, not knowing the scope of what they were missioned to do).

 

:iagree: And seriously, with all this debating freedom of speech, what about freedom of religion? I don't get why building a mosque is even an issue.

[mommaduck]

Not sure what the news coverage is in the U.S. on this but it is BIG NEWS here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11223457

 

This guy is out of his mind. Not only is it a disgusting, distasteful thing to do, it puts people like us in serious danger. And during Hari Raya? It is just nuts! We just got home from a staff meeting where our employers told us to pray that someone stops this guy before he goes through with it. And if he does go through with it we are to "lay low" and not go to public places or flaunt the fact that we are americans, etc. for a while. It could get very ugly as it is already all over the news here that there are protests brewing and the police are prepping for riots. :glare:

Praying for ya'll. It's been discussion here and elsewhere, I believe. The thing is, people like this really don't realise the danger they are putting others in. Instead of reaching out to others, they are simply and only offending them. Yep, that's sure going to spread the gospel!

[simka2]

No, I get what she's saying. Why would a person intentionally do something that they know may result in harm to themselves or others? Ok, let's not use the wife/husband analogy. It's sort of like driving through the ghetto, pulling up to a gang member, and yelling a racial slur. Duh. Of course that person is going to react negatively.

 

 

That is a much better analogy :001_smile:. But the other analogy still makes me sad. I will give the benfit of the doubt in thinking the poster had already started down one train of thought and was just trying to make it fit.

[QueenCat]

If he didn't know what the outcome would be, if he hadn't been warned, it would be different. He's been told, though, that this will end up costing American lives--not that that's ok, but that that's the nature of the enemy--& he doesn't care. He's not enlisting w/ the troops who will be targeted, he's hiding behind their courage.

 

This is the equivalent of shouting "FIRE" in a crowded building. It's a *stunt* that will cost lives. If "freedom of speech" is truly & completely limitless, it's not freedom; the powerful will use the "right" to bully the weak.

 

:iagree:Exactly!

[QueenCat]

Not all Muslims are Al Qaeda or terrorists. Why is this "pastor" targeting Islam? Why not burn a picture of Bin Laden or some other Al Qaeda leader instead? It's sort of like blaming ALL Catholics for the few Catholic priests who have done bad things.

.

 

Unfortunately, many are ignorant to this fact. Even people who otherwise seem intelligent.

[SailorMom]

I have a very personal stake in this that I cannot discuss on this board, but I can say that I think this man is a loon and while it would not be his "fault" if anyone is killed - I'd be pretty ticked at him.

 

Burning the Koran is protected as free speech. In America - we cannot go around arresting and holding people (as one poster suggested) when they have not - nor will they - commit a crime.

 

The extreme muslims would be 100% culpable for their actions, as they have been for all previous actions. Using a loon burning one of their holy books as an excuse to kill people is ridiculous - no matter what the screwed up reasoning. I know that isn't PC - but I don't care.

 

Freedom in America is precious and no matter how much I want to slap the idiot in the face - he can still burn this book.

[Stacy in NJ]

I am not sure I can comprehend what you are saying. When the Taliban destroyed some old hindu or buddhist statues,m then there was indeed a world outrage, remember? Why on earth would it be OK for anyone to show blatant disrespect like that?

 

Ground Zero, mosque or Islamic Center, what's the deal with that? It is not even *on* Ground Zero, but close by. Talk about having a right to build bridges. As some might know -and some might ignore to acknowledge- then plenty of innoncent Muslims got destroyed that day in the Twin Towers. Not all the world's Muslims found it cool what a group of 20 people decided to do (and some of them were sort of lured into it, as pr. news-reports, not knowing the scope of what they were missioned to do).

 

The Western response to the destruction of the buddhist statues wasn't to threaten the lives of Muslims living in our countries. The reason it's okay to show blatant disrespect is because we (the USA) have freedom of expression, and while it is obviously a stupid, infantile act, it is protected speech. As Voltaire said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Free speech is either a founding principle or it isn't. Fortunately, in America it is.

 

The problem with the Ground Zero mosque is that there is a suspicion, whether rational or not, that the motivation in building it there is based on triumphalism - not a real attempt to build bridges. The developers have infact gone out of their way to marginalize and insult those expressing concern about the mosque instead of actually listening to them and engaging in a respectful dialogue. Also of concern is their source of funding. One of the developers is in fact a known contributor to a charity currently on the US band list due to ties to terrorism.

 

While I'm sure there are many, many Muslims that were upset and disgusted by the actions of the 9/11 murderers, unfortunately we here in New York and the US very rarely hear their voices raised in concern instead we hear silence. The few Muslims that do speak about their concerns are frequently threatened with violence. Ayaan Hirsi Ali lives under a constant threat of death because she dare criticize Islam.

 

While I'm disgusted by the idiot and his idiot followers who intend to burn the Koran, the people responsible for violence in any part of the world because of this stupid act are the people who act violently.

 

I wish Heather and her family and other Christians all safety, I also wonder if she really understood the circumstances in Maylasia before she decided to move her family there.

Edited September 8, 2010 by Stacy in NJ

[Chris in VA]

I am hoping a group of Christians will try to reach this pastor. I just don't know how his is expecting this to bring "the lost" into "the fold." It seems to me some other power is at work, to be totally honest.

 

I'm not going to comment on the free speech or anything like that.

[Jackie in AR]

Is it so hard for you to believe? And why does it matter?

 

I am a Christian. I was raised a Christian. But more and more, I'm thinking that teachings I was brought up with in the Christian faith are not what Christianity is anymore.

 

astrid

 

Oh, it doesn't matter at all, Astrid. I just didn't realize that your were because I don't remember ever reading where you've posted that before. Of course, I'm really not around on these boards very much any more so I'm sure there are lots of things that people have posted about themselves that I've missed.

[Jenny in Atl]

But we're not talking about hornets - we're talking about PEOPLE, with the ability to reason and take responsibility.

 

J

 

But, when you talk about faith, you're not talking about reason. I believe strongly in people being held responsible for their actions. Not sure where this idea has arisen that anyone who does something stupid in rage should not be help accountable. However, the doofus in Florida should also be held accountable for knowingly antagonizing people who have let go of reason. I see him as no different that someone who insights a riot. He wants there to be violence, he wants deaths... I can see no other reason for his actions. He wants some sort of holy war, like we have not already had enough of these.

[Jackie in AR]

Calling the terrorists "hornets" is hardly denying culpability.

 

It's one thing to stick your own hand into the nest; it's another thing to shoot it w/ a water gun from the other side of the world while other people are standing near the nest.

 

If he didn't know what the outcome would be, if he hadn't been warned, it would be different. He's been told, though, that this will end up costing American lives--not that that's ok, but that that's the nature of the enemy--& he doesn't care. He's not enlisting w/ the troops who will be targeted, he's hiding behind their courage.

 

This is the equivalent of shouting "FIRE" in a crowded building. It's a *stunt* that will cost lives. If "freedom of speech" is truly & completely limitless, it's not freedom; the powerful will use the "right" to bully the weak.

 

I don't expect personal responsibility from a hornet.

 

I do expect it from human beings.

 

I personally disagree with what this man has planned, but I defend his right to do it. And I remain convinced that any harm that results from it will be squarely the fault of those who do the harming. Anger is not justification for physical violence.

[Stacy in NJ]

To me, then it would seem logic to arrest the guy and hold him detained untill Sunday at least. He has threatened publicly to do an act that would cause in consequences and be globally misunderstood as sanctioned by our US government. Detain him on grounds of disrespecting others' religion etc., whatever statute that is, and let's keep everyone safe. And I mean this in the sense that irrational and tempered people are going to react.

 

 

We have a Constitution and live by the rule of law, that's why we can't arrest him for engaging in a legal activity.

[Tree House Academy]

Oh my gosh! I didn't know about this, but it makes me sick to my stomach. I am a Christian American, but I have friends who are Muslim and they do not deserve this at all. You are right, this could get very dangerous and ugly!

[Parrothead]

I don't expect personal responsibility from a hornet.

 

I do expect it from human beings.

 

I personally disagree with what this man has planned, but I defend his right to do it. And I remain convinced that any harm that results from it will be squarely the fault of those who do the harming. Anger is not justification for physical violence.

:iagree:I'm with you there. When will we stop being bullied? And tolerance works both ways. We are expected to tolerate the extremists, they should be expected to tolerate our idiots. But no. We tolerate the extremists and fear for our lives because of their intolerance. Seems to me "tolerance" is a code word for cowering in fear.

[Mom2absh]

But, when you talk about faith, you're not talking about reason. I believe strongly in people being held responsible for their actions. Not sure where this idea has arisen that anyone who does something stupid in rage should not be help accountable. However, the doofus in Florida should also be held accountable for knowingly antagonizing people who have let go of reason. I see him as no different that someone who insights a riot. He wants there to be violence, he wants deaths... I can see no other reason for his actions. He wants some sort of holy war, like we have not already had enough of these.

 

Having faith does not mean you do not have reason - far from it.

 

I think the pastor in Florida is making a terrible mistake, but I'm also tired of excusing the bullying behavior of terrorists by saying "Oh, that's just how they are, don't make them mad." Too few people are willing to stand up to these thugs and tell them they can't rule the world with their fear tactics.

 

I also agree with other posters that the media has given this far more attention than it deserved - that's a whole other field where reason does not inform behavior!

 

J

[Mom2absh]

:iagree:

 

J

[ktgrok]

I agree that we can't tip toe around and worry about making terrorists mad. However, there is NO OTHER POINT here than to try to make terrorists, and others who are not terrorists, mad. That is his whole agenda. To incite anger. That is morally reprehensible, although totally legal. I protect his right to do it as an American citizen. And I denounce him doing it at a human being.

 

Also, I do think that if there was a huge media circus around an Imam in Florida burning bibles that Christians would probably become violent. In fact I think that some innocent Muslims would very likely end up being targets of violence, just as I am now afraid that innocent Christians will be targets of violence. And anyone that doubts that Christians could be incited to violence by that kind of thing are living in a dream world.

[Stacy in NJ]

:iagree:

 

In America, we have the freedom to burn the Koran, the Holy Bible, the American flag, or anything else we wish to destroy.

 

If people are harmed because this group decides to burn the Koran, the fault will lie squarely with the people doing the harming.

 

:iagree:

 

The Koran burning idiot will experience negative consequences, not from our legal system, but from the millions of Americans that will socially ostracize him, point their finger, and rightfully call him unchristian. His endangering our troops will not be forgiven.

 

The Muslims who engage in violent acts because of this idiot are 100% responsible for their own action. To not hold them responsible would be to engage in racist or imperialist attitudes. To hold double standards like: we can expect violence from Muslims, but must hold ourselves to higher more sophisticated standards, is an act of racism/imperialism.

[Plucky]

:iagree:

 

The Koran burning idiot will experience negative consequences, not from our legal system, but from the millions of Americans that will socially ostracize him, point their finger, and rightfully call him unchristian. His endangering our troops will not be forgiven.

 

The Muslims who engage in violent acts because of this idiot are 100% responsible for their own action. To not hold them responsible would be to engage in racist or imperialist attitudes. To hold double standards like: we can expect violence from Muslims, but must hold ourselves to higher more sophisticated standards, is an act of racism/imperialism.

 

Excellent point.

[Audrey]

I find the logic in this post disturbing. Have we reached the point that we are going to restrict the Constitutional rights of our citizens in fear of what international terrorists and/or ignorant religious fanatics in other nations may do?

Jackie in AR is correct in noting that the outrage directed at the acts of this pastor seem misdirected considering the other side is threatening to kill innocents in response.

 

 

They could arrest him on the grounds of inciting a riot. THAT overrides "constitutional rights."

 

I've said before that I don't think christians should have to keep apologizing for the quackadoodles who keep doing outrageous and assinine things under the guise of Christianity, but.... I do think that it would behoove Christians to police the quackadoodles more openly. Surely there are Christians in FL who are appalled and offended at what this nutter is doing. A counter-demonstration, counter-media and some good old fashioned direct intervention are surely in order here.

 

And for gosh sakes! It's FLORIDA! Don't tell me someone can't round up a dozen good Christian defensive tackles to take that nutter down if necessary!

Edited September 8, 2010 by Audrey

[Parrothead]

... And anyone that doubts that Christians could be incited to violence by that kind of thing are living in a dream world.

I wouldn't believe it until I see it happening. Christians have had 2000 years of "turn the other cheek" training.

[Parrothead]

They could arrest him on the grounds of inciting a riot. THAT overrides "constitutional rights."

 

I've said before that I don't think christians should have to keep apologizing for the quackadoodles who keep doing outrageous and assinine things under the guise of Christianity, but.... I do think that it would behoove Christians to police the quackadoodles more openly. Surely there are Christians in FL who are appalled and offended at what this nutter is doing. A counter-demonstration, counter-media and some good old fashioned direct intervention are surely in order here.

I agree with this. But I counter with who is policing the extremist who get their knickers in a twist over what some foolish pastor is doing thousands of miles away?

 

PS inciting a riot does not override constitutional rights. This pastor has not yet incited a riot so he can not be arrested. A person can not be arrested for something he might do sometime in the future.

[A.D.]

They could arrest him on the grounds of inciting a riot. THAT overrides "constitutional rights."

 

No, they could not. Laws regarding "inciting riots" in the United States pertain to the accused encouraging people to "riot" (ie engage in violent/disruptive acts), not situations where others react in disagreement to the actions of another.

Example: the jurors in California who made a decision in the Rodney King case that many disagreed with could not be jailed for the riots that occurred in response.

 

A counter-demonstration, counter-media and some good old fashioned direct intervention are surely in order here.

 

That is happening. If Muslim extremists do attack Christians in response, I will be eagerly awaiting the counter demonstrations in Islamic nations.

 

And for gosh sakes! It's FLORIDA! Don't tell me someone can't round up a dozen good Christian defensive tackles to take that nutter down if necessary!

 

I am sure they could do so if they wanted to be jailed for battery.

[Stacy in NJ]

They could arrest him on the grounds of inciting a riot. THAT overrides "constitutional rights."

 

I've said before that I don't think christians should have to keep apologizing for the quackadoodles who keep doing outrageous and assinine things under the guise of Christianity, but.... I do think that it would behoove Christians to police the quackadoodles more openly. Surely there are Christians in FL who are appalled and offended at what this nutter is doing. A counter-demonstration, counter-media and some good old fashioned direct intervention are surely in order here.

 

And for gosh sakes! It's FLORIDA! Don't tell me someone can't round up a dozen good Christian defensive tackles to take that nutter down if necessary!

 

Just curious, but why would you place consitutional rights in scare quotes?

[Stacy in NJ]

But, if you stick your finger into a hornets nest, you shouldn't be surprised at the outcome...

 

Yes, that's true, but it is part of the price we pay for having a free society. Sometimes idiots poke at things they shouldn't. They pay the price in that those forced to defend their stupidity frequently resent and even hate them.

[mommaduck]

They could arrest him on the grounds of inciting a riot. THAT overrides "constitutional rights."

 

I've said before that I don't think christians should have to keep apologizing for the quackadoodles who keep doing outrageous and assinine things under the guise of Christianity, but.... I do think that it would behoove Christians to police the quackadoodles more openly. Surely there are Christians in FL who are appalled and offended at what this nutter is doing. A counter-demonstration, counter-media and some good old fashioned direct intervention are surely in order here.

 

And for gosh sakes! It's FLORIDA! Don't tell me someone can't round up a dozen good Christian defensive tackles to take that nutter down if necessary!

We can't police the quacks. What are we supposed to do? What can we do? The news crews aren't going around asking what other Christians think...they don't care to. We can't do anything physical or restraining...WE would be the ones jailed and prosecuted. So please tell me what you think WE should do?

[Audrey]

Just curious, but why would you place consitutional rights in scare quotes?

:001_huh: It's in quotes to quote it from the original post I was referencing. Read too much in it, eh?