DWOC's International Burn a Koran Day

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

But it's OK to burn the sacred text of "our" religion. Ironic?

Military burns unsolicited Bibles sent to Afghanistan - CNN.com

Military protocol was followed though I would have like to have seen them returned.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Good interesting article. But the context of comparing the two pretty far off.

Back-woods ignorant redneck pastor is getting this all this press. This guy seriously thinks this is a war on Islam. Laughable of the ignorance of this country and anyone who agrees with what he is doing. Putting our military at risk, including a close friend of mine located outside of Kandahar. Maybe we need to put this guy on a plane and send him over there to preach, cause no sensible American would agree with what this guy is doing. Where is Glenn Beck to give history lessons regarding freedom of religion?

No comparison between the acts other than sacred texts burned or threatened to be burned.

What is interesting is the response to each act. Many Muslims threatened violence world-wide, yet no Christians I am aware of committed or threatened violence over the burned Bibles. Even the soldier the Bibles were sent to surrendered them without incident, and it appears he was an Evangelical.

Considering this incident has been made public and in light of the President's comments over the Quran incident, it would seem appropriate he issue some sort of statement, or policy through Sec Gates, stating that the military would not be throwing away as trash, and/or burning any Bibles. They could be donated somewhere outside the danger zone or returned to the folks that sent them with a warning to not resend them.

[Chico23231]

President Obama said it should be possible to build a mosque anywhere a church or synagogue could be built. "I recognize the extraordinary sensitivities," Obama said, but "we are not at war against Islam."

Well said again. Obama is on a roll today.

[JoeRedskin]

“I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Voltaire

The pastor, misdirected as I believe him to be, is making a political statement by his book burning. As long as he does so in an otherwise legal manner, he is allowed to make his statement of hate and, although we may disagree with it, we as Americans should defend his right to make that statement. Further, we should do so in a manner that clearly indicates that violence in response to hateful speech is just as wrong as the initial hateful speech.

One of the things I find upsetting about the response to this hateful speech is the lack of condemnation, by the Islamic community, of the notion that violence is in any way an appropriate response to this idiot’s actions. There are any number of responses which leading Muslim clerics could endorse as a response – ranging from calling the faithful to reach out to peaceful Christians and to hold joint rally’s for Christian & Muslims, to sermons on how these actions perpetuate a message of hate that is antithetical to Muslims and Christians, or even to burning Bibles. All of these are attempts to combat hateful speech with additional speech.

Yet, what I hear is not, “Muslims, it is a sin against Allah to respond with violence or hatred to this fool’s actions” or “Those who react with violence are condemned before the eyes of Allah”. Instead, the response seems to be, at best, “We can’t promise that any Christian will be safe from radical Muslim fundamentalists who are offended by this action.”

Let me be clear – I think DWOC’s action is contrary to God’s word and to the tenets of Christianity. DWOC’s actions are a perpetuation of hatred and encourage faithful and unfaithful alike to separate themselves from the truth and beauty that is God. As such, his actions are sinful and lead people to damnation.

With that said, a physically violent, destructive response to hateful speech has the same results.

The way to combat hateful speech is with additional speech and let the truth will out. Instead, there appears (to me anyway) to be a toleration, by the larger Islamic community as a whole, of the violent response proposed by a minority to disliked speech. Toleration may be too strong. Rather, it's seems to be a shrug "Yeah, we don't agree with radical Muslims and physical violence is wrong, but what can you do about it". I have not heard one Muslim cleric assert that, no matter how reprehensible the idea is, this idiot has the right to burn these books. Have I missed that?

Two wrongs do not make a right and the second wrong should be condemned just as strongly as the first (particularly where the threat of physical injury is being made). I may have missed it, but I simply haven’t seen the Islamic religious leaders step forth, defend DWOC's right to do this, and loudly condemn a violent response to this proposed action.

I hope and pray that the idiot does not burn these Holy Books. I also hope and pray that any response to his hateful speech does not perpetuate the cycle of hate.

[over the mountain]

well said joe.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

President Obama said it should be possible to build a mosque anywhere a church or synagogue could be built. "I recognize the extraordinary sensitivities," Obama said, but "we are not at war against Islam."

Well said again. Obama is on a roll today.

Would a Shinto shrine be OK at Pearl Harbor within 10 years of Dec. 7, 1941? How about a skin-head / Nazi outreach center near the Holocaust Museum?

We keep being told by many on the left that we must be tolerant of Muslims, how about peaceful Muslims step up and be tolerant of the U.S. and the families of 9/11 victims. That would go a long way towards healing wounds.

We're not at war with peaceful Muslims, but we are at war with those that believe in the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood, whether we like it or not.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

“I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Voltaire

The pastor, misdirected as I believe him to be, is making a political statement by his book burning. As long as he does so in an otherwise legal manner, he is allowed to make his statement of hate and, although we may disagree with it, we as Americans should defend his right to make that statement. Further, we should do so in a manner that clearly indicates that violence in response to hateful speech is just as wrong as the initial hateful speech.

One of the things I find upsetting about the response to this hateful speech is the lack of condemnation, by the Islamic community, of the notion that violence is in any way an appropriate response to this idiot’s actions. There are any number of responses which leading Muslim clerics could endorse as a response – ranging from calling the faithful to reach out to peaceful Christians and to hold joint rally’s for Christian & Muslims, to sermons on how these actions perpetuate a message of hate that is antithetical to Muslims and Christians, or even to burning Bibles. All of these are attempts to combat hateful speech with additional speech.

Yet, what I hear is not, “Muslims, it is a sin against Allah to respond with violence or hatred to this fool’s actions” or “Those who react with violence are condemned before the eyes of Allah”. Instead, the response seems to be, at best, “We can’t promise that any Christian will be safe from radical Muslim fundamentalists who are offended by this action.”

Let me be clear – I think DWOC’s action is contrary to God’s word and to the tenets of Christianity. DWOC’s actions are a perpetuation of hatred and encourage faithful and unfaithful alike to separate themselves from the truth and beauty that is God. As such, his actions are sinful and lead people to damnation.

With that said, a physically violent, destructive response to hateful speech has the same results.

The way to combat hateful speech is with additional speech and let the truth will out. Instead, there appears (to me anyway) to be a toleration, by the larger Islamic community as a whole, of the violent response proposed by a minority to disliked speech. Toleration may be too strong. Rather, it's seems to be a shrug "Yeah, we don't agree with radical Muslims and physical violence is wrong, but what can you do about it". I have not heard one Muslim cleric assert that, no matter how reprehensible the idea is, this idiot has the right to burn these books. Have I missed that?

Two wrongs do not make a right and the second wrong should be condemned just as strongly as the first (particularly where the threat of physical injury is being made). I may have missed it, but I simply haven’t seen the Islamic religious leaders step forth, defend DWOC's right to do this, and loudly condemn a violent response to this proposed action.

I hope and pray that the idiot does not burn these Holy Books. I also hope and pray that any response to his hateful speech does not perpetuate the cycle of hate.

I particularly agree here.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

“I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Voltaire

The pastor, misdirected as I believe him to be, is making a political statement by his book burning. As long as he does so in an otherwise legal manner, he is allowed to make his statement of hate and, although we may disagree with it, we as Americans should defend his right to make that statement. Further, we should do so in a manner that clearly indicates that violence in response to hateful speech is just as wrong as the initial hateful speech.

One of the things I find upsetting about the response to this hateful speech is the lack of condemnation, by the Islamic community, of the notion that violence is in any way an appropriate response to this idiot’s actions. There are any number of responses which leading Muslim clerics could endorse as a response – ranging from calling the faithful to reach out to peaceful Christians and to hold joint rally’s for Christian & Muslims, to sermons on how these actions perpetuate a message of hate that is antithetical to Muslims and Christians, or even to burning Bibles. All of these are attempts to combat hateful speech with additional speech.

Yet, what I hear is not, “Muslims, it is a sin against Allah to respond with violence or hatred to this fool’s actions” or “Those who react with violence are condemned before the eyes of Allah”. Instead, the response seems to be, at best, “We can’t promise that any Christian will be safe from radical Muslim fundamentalists who are offended by this action.”

Let me be clear – I think DWOC’s action is contrary to God’s word and to the tenets of Christianity. DWOC’s actions are a perpetuation of hatred and encourage faithful and unfaithful alike to separate themselves from the truth and beauty that is God. As such, his actions are sinful and lead people to damnation.

With that said, a physically violent, destructive response to hateful speech has the same results.

The way to combat hateful speech is with additional speech and let the truth will out. Instead, there appears (to me anyway) to be a toleration, by the larger Islamic community as a whole, of the violent response proposed by a minority to disliked speech. Toleration may be too strong. Rather, it's seems to be a shrug "Yeah, we don't agree with radical Muslims and physical violence is wrong, but what can you do about it". I have not heard one Muslim cleric assert that, no matter how reprehensible the idea is, this idiot has the right to burn these books. Have I missed that?

Two wrongs do not make a right and the second wrong should be condemned just as strongly as the first (particularly where the threat of physical injury is being made). I may have missed it, but I simply haven’t seen the Islamic religious leaders step forth, defend DWOC's right to do this, and loudly condemn a violent response to this proposed action.

I hope and pray that the idiot does not burn these Holy Books. I also hope and pray that any response to his hateful speech does not perpetuate the cycle of hate.

Here's one

Iraq's top Shiite cleric urges tolerance towards Christians - Monsters and Critics

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

No comparison between the acts other than sacred texts burned or threatened to be burned.

What is interesting is the response to each act. Many Muslims threatened violence world-wide, yet no Christians I am aware of committed or threatened violence over the burned Bibles. Even the soldier the Bibles were sent to surrendered them without incident, and it appears he was an Evangelical.

Considering this incident has been made public and in light of the President's comments over the Quran incident, it would seem appropriate he issue some sort of statement, or policy through Sec Gates, stating that the military would not be throwing away as trash, and/or burning any Bibles. They could be donated somewhere outside the danger zone or returned to the folks that sent them with a warning to not resend them.

We're seeing violence acts against Muslims now in America without them having to burn the Bible. It's one thing for US personal to burn the Bible an entirely another for Muslims to do so for the sole purpose of Aggravating Christians. Burning the Qur'an is an absolute no-no by anyone, be it Christian or Muslim or a Jew.

For Christians, Jesus is the word of God. For Muslims, the Quran is the word of God. Imagine someone burning Jesus.

-Emad El-Din Shahin

The military got the sense that those churches will keep sending proselytizing Bibles and like the military personal said, if they returned them they will send them right back to another organization and thus give the impression that the Military is there to proselytize. They've made a tactical decision, one which I am sure was difficult. As for Obama making a statement, why would he? He wasn't president when the incident took place. If you want them to have a military policy to burn all trash except the Bible you have my support. I will not support distributing them or donating them somewhere outside the danger zone.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

“I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Voltaire

The pastor, misdirected as I believe him to be, is making a political statement by his book burning. As long as he does so in an otherwise legal manner, he is allowed to make his statement of hate and, although we may disagree with it, we as Americans should defend his right to make that statement. Further, we should do so in a manner that clearly indicates that violence in response to hateful speech is just as wrong as the initial hateful speech.

One of the things I find upsetting about the response to this hateful speech is the lack of condemnation, by the Islamic community, of the notion that violence is in any way an appropriate response to this idiot’s actions. There are any number of responses which leading Muslim clerics could endorse as a response – ranging from calling the faithful to reach out to peaceful Christians and to hold joint rally’s for Christian & Muslims, to sermons on how these actions perpetuate a message of hate that is antithetical to Muslims and Christians, or even to burning Bibles. All of these are attempts to combat hateful speech with additional speech.

Yet, what I hear is not, “Muslims, it is a sin against Allah to respond with violence or hatred to this fool’s actions” or “Those who react with violence are condemned before the eyes of Allah”. Instead, the response seems to be, at best, “We can’t promise that any Christian will be safe from radical Muslim fundamentalists who are offended by this action.”

Let me be clear – I think DWOC’s action is contrary to God’s word and to the tenets of Christianity. DWOC’s actions are a perpetuation of hatred and encourage faithful and unfaithful alike to separate themselves from the truth and beauty that is God. As such, his actions are sinful and lead people to damnation.

With that said, a physically violent, destructive response to hateful speech has the same results.

The way to combat hateful speech is with additional speech and let the truth will out. Instead, there appears (to me anyway) to be a toleration, by the larger Islamic community as a whole, of the violent response proposed by a minority to disliked speech. Toleration may be too strong. Rather, it's seems to be a shrug "Yeah, we don't agree with radical Muslims and physical violence is wrong, but what can you do about it". I have not heard one Muslim cleric assert that, no matter how reprehensible the idea is, this idiot has the right to burn these books. Have I missed that?

Two wrongs do not make a right and the second wrong should be condemned just as strongly as the first (particularly where the threat of physical injury is being made). I may have missed it, but I simply haven’t seen the Islamic religious leaders step forth, defend DWOC's right to do this, and loudly condemn a violent response to this proposed action.

I hope and pray that the idiot does not burn these Holy Books. I also hope and pray that any response to his hateful speech does not perpetuate the cycle of hate.

Muslims are indifferent to this pastor's well being because what he proposes to do is beyond vile (who in here cares what happens to Fred Phelps?). There are idiots out there talking about how they would respond to this pastor's action by attacking and Americans/Christians and I don't see Muslims being indifferent to this.

There will be one nut job out there that thinks he's going to get heaven credits with a violent act against this pastor. Best of luck to the pastor.

[JoeRedskin]

From the article:

Iraq's top Shiite Muslim leader has condemned plans by a pastor in the United States to burn copies of the Koran, but urged Muslims not to be provoked and called for tolerance of Christians.

Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, in a statement released Thursday night, said: 'While we denounce the assault on the Holy Koran and stress the importance of not letting this occur, we urge Muslims, where ever they are, to exercise the utmost restraint.'

‘Do not do what would hurt the followers of the church,' he said.

Al-Sistani said the call by Florida pastor Terry Jones for the Koran-burning on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the US, was not compatible with the task of religious leaders to 'promote tolerance and peaceful coexistence.'

This is exactly what I mean by a tolerant shrug. Sorry, he is not condemning violent reactions. Rather, he “urges” Muslims to exercise “restraint”. Is the restraint “urged” because it is wrong to do violence? No, it is urged so as to not “hurt the followers” of Islam. What about urging restraint because it is wrong to do harm to others who don’t believe as you do? What about condemning violent responses to hateful speech as being antithetical to the word of Allah, the teachings of Mohammend and “not compatible with the task of religious leaders to “promote tolerance and peaceful coexistence”?

He does not defend the right of people to speak their mind. Instead, he “stress[es] the importance of not letting this [burning] occur.” If DWOC wants to legally make his statement how can he be prevented except by violence? By changing the fundamental constitutional guarantees of our country?

Where is the unequivocal condemnation of violence? Where is the “violence in response to speech is sinful”?

This statement by “Iraq’s top Shiite Muslim leader” is exactly the type of reaction that I am talking about. Tell the faithful it is wrong and evil to kill in response hatred. Tell them this idiot has the right to make his own choices about Allah. Tell them that any one who encourages them to harm others in response to this action is working against the will Allah. Don’t simply "urge restraint" because a violent response might make Islam look bad.

In order to truly “promote tolerance and peaceful coexistence”, I would hope for more from “Iraq’s top Shiite Muslim leader”.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

Muslims are indifferent to this pastor's well being because what he proposes to do is beyond vile (who in here cares what happens to Fred Phelps?). There are idiots out there talking about how they would respond to this pastor's action by attacking and Americans/Christians and I don't see Muslims being indifferent to this.

There will be one nut job out there that thinks he's going to get heaven credits with a violent act against this pastor. Best of luck to the pastor.

In light of Iraq's top shiite cleric "urging restraint" by all Muslims, I suggest it is not just the pastor who need fear from a "nut job out there that thinks he's going to get heaven credits with a violent act."

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

Muslims are indifferent to this pastor's well being because what he proposes to do is beyond vile (who in here cares what happens to Fred Phelps?). There are idiots out there talking about how they would respond to this pastor's action by attacking and Americans/Christians and I don't see Muslims being indifferent to this.

There will be one nut job out there that thinks he's going to get heaven credits with a violent act against this pastor. Best of luck to the pastor.

In light of Iraq's top shiite cleric "urging restraint" by all Muslims, I suggest it is not just the pastor who need fear from a "nut job out there that thinks he's going to get heaven credits with a violent act."

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Would a Shinto shrine be OK at Pearl Harbor within 10 years of Dec. 7, 1941? How about a skin-head / Nazi outreach center near the Holocaust Museum?
We keep being told by many on the left that we must be tolerant of Muslims, how about peaceful Muslims step up and be tolerant of the U.S. and the families of 9/11 victims. That would go a long way towards healing wounds.

We're not at war with peaceful Muslims, but we are at war with those that believe in the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood, whether we like it or not.

apples and oranges my friend. not close

Why yes we should be tolerant of our fellow Americans. After all we were founded on the principles of tolerance. 4 thousands mosques, 5-7 million muslims across this great country. And have been legally immigrating at a fairly fast rate since 9/11...i think almost 100k a couple years ago. At my Baptist church we have welcome muslims in to gain a better understanding of their faith and shared service...pretty normal people. My friend we will thankfully never be a war with islam because of our principals. We will be at war with people who use Islam as a veil against our government policies in the middle east. Now they will lose.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

We're seeing violence acts against Muslims now in America without them having to burn the Bible.

Violence against Muslims here is wrong and I denounce it. Although what you're talking about is likely the cab driver incident and one or two others. These are isolated incidents and comparatively small compared to the violence that Muslims threatened over the Quran burning threat and committed during the Mohammed drawings.

And yes, burning Bibles or the Qur'an is an absolute no-no by anyone, be it Christian or Muslim or a Jew.

As for Obama making a statement, why would he? He wasn't president when the incident took place.

He's the CinC now and the incident has hit the media now. If you're gonna hold the red lightsaber, gotta step up.

If you want them to have a military policy to burn all trash except the Bible you have my support. I will not support distributing them or donating them somewhere outside the danger zone.

Fair enough. The military folks shouldn't be doing this type of thing anyway. While I was in the USAF I ran across a few of the evangelicals, they can't help themselves for their own good. There's a time and place for everything, if you want to spread the Word come back to Afghanistan/Iraq etc. when you're out and a civilian if you feel that strongly about it.