So there's this nothing church in the ass end of nowhere...

[Argus]

Can you imagine the world-wide fuss if someone planned to burn a bible? Right, big yawn. It wouldn't even make the local papers, never mind be front page all over the world, with generals and prime ministers and kings and popes and such all aghast because some hick preacher nobody ever heard of before is going to burn a book.

The subtext is interesting, but largely unspoken amongst all the denunciations. Muslims are a rabid group of wack jobs and anything can set them off. Burn a copy of the koran and whole crowds of them will go insane, gurgling and drooling like rabid dogs and burning down buildings, killing people, setting off explosives. There's no telling what these crazy people might do! Like I said, rarely vocalized, though.

No, instead what we get are all kinds of criticism of the hick preacher for being so intolerant! Uh yeahh, he deserves to have the pope yelling at him for his "intolerance" but the wack jobs who are holding onto sanity with their fingernails - well, hey, you can't blame them! They're Muslims! You know, MUSLIMS! You don't blame a snake for biting you, right? Of course Muslims are going to run rampant, burning and rioting and killing if someone they never heard of in a church they've never seen half a world away burns a koran! That's what Muslims DO, after all!

Right?

[M.Dancer]

How many threads do we need on this?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16934&view=getnewpost&hl=&fromsearch=1

[Shady]

Can you imagine the world-wide fuss if someone planned to burn a bible? Right, big yawn. It wouldn't even make the local papers, never mind be front page all over the world, with generals and prime ministers and kings and popes and such all aghast because some hick preacher nobody ever heard of before is going to burn a book.

The subtext is interesting, but largely unspoken amongst all the denunciations. Muslims are a rabid group of wack jobs and anything can set them off. Burn a copy of the koran and whole crowds of them will go insane, gurgling and drooling like rabid dogs and burning down buildings, killing people, setting off explosives. There's no telling what these crazy people might do! Like I said, rarely vocalized, though.

No, instead what we get are all kinds of criticism of the hick preacher for being so intolerant! Uh yeahh, he deserves to have the pope yelling at him for his "intolerance" but the wack jobs who are holding onto sanity with their fingernails - well, hey, you can't blame them! They're Muslims! You know, MUSLIMS! You don't blame a snake for biting you, right? Of course Muslims are going to run rampant, burning and rioting and killing if someone they never heard of in a church they've never seen half a world away burns a koran! That's what Muslims DO, after all!

Right?

Well said, and completely on the mark!

[eyeball]

So, in light of where all the dots have fallen, does anyone still think doing things like overthrowing Mossadegh or propping up Saddam was a good idea?

It was only a matter of time before some otherwise irrelevant yet virulent religious school of thought on our side of the pond got stirred up by this clash of civilizations. I wonder how long it will take to metastesize into an Christian al Queada? For all we know we're no more than a galvanizing event away from finding out.

[waldo]

Muslims are a rabid group of wack jobs and anything can set them off. Burn a copy of the koran and whole crowds of them will go insane, gurgling and drooling like rabid dogs and burning down buildings, killing people, setting off explosives. There's no telling what these crazy people might do!

Of course Muslims are going to run rampant, burning and rioting and killing if someone they never heard of in a church they've never seen half a world away burns a koran! That's what Muslims DO, after all!

Right?

since you don't have the smarts and presence to be the devils advocate... there's actually a concern that radical elements will exploit the event... twist it, turn it to suggest it's emblematic of the actions/sentiment of Westerners & Western society at large. You know, just like this thread aims to do with respect to radical elements versus Muslims at large.

[M.Dancer]

So, in light of where all the dots have fallen, does anyone still think doing things like overthrowing Mossadegh or propping up Saddam was a good idea?

Over throwing dictators and propping up constitutional governemnets is always a good idea, but I forget, you would have supported giving Hitler a free hand in europe so of course you feel differently about it.

[Argus]

How many threads do we need on this?

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16934&view=getnewpost&hl=&fromsearch=1

Well, I wasn't aware there was one, not spending a lot of time on US politics - which is a dumb place for it, come to think of it.

My problem isn't that the hick preacher is going to burn a koran. It's that every news broadcast is full of it. It's all over the TV and radio, with reporters seeking out anyone who will condemn it and breathlessly warning us of the dire consequences. I mean, wtf, it's a stupid book that some wacky southern preacher with 50 people in his "church" is going to burn. So what? You got no better stories than this?

[Argus]

since you don't have the smarts and presence to be the devils advocate... there's actually a concern that radical elements will exploit the event... twist it, turn it to suggest it's emblematic of the actions/sentiment of Westerners & Western society at large. You know, just like this thread aims to do with respect to radical elements versus Muslims at large.

Since you don't have the brains to figure this out - radical elements will twist and turn any damned thing they want to make excitable Muslim wack jobs go bonkers and set things (even themselves) on fire. So what? Muslims go bonkers and blow things up every single day all over the world. Why is the media covering this wall to wall? If I announce I'm going to burn a koran will CNN show up on my doorstep too?

[Sir Bandelot]

My problem isn't that the hick preacher is going to burn a koran. It's that every news broadcast is full of it. It's all over the TV and radio, with reporters seeking out anyone who will condemn it and breathlessly warning us of the dire consequences. I mean, wtf, it's a stupid book that some wacky southern preacher with 50 people in his "church" is going to burn. So what? You got no better stories than this?

I think you are getting close to the real issue thats at hand here. It's not about some person burning the koran, because there have been other so-called insults made to the koran, even in the past few years and although some muslim groups got pissy about it, it was not made into a really big deal. At least, not on the scale we have now.

Who is making it into a big deal then? Answer, western media. The ones who are hollering it loudest is us, and as a result some muslim people are responding to the media frenzy (read, hype) and also getting far too excited over it.

Personally I think it's overblown and generally a stupid thing to do, and a waste of time but there are others who think completely the opposite. There's the zealots who want to burn it, and the zealots who want to attack those who would burn it. The difference between these two, is but fleeting...

I think the good thing about it really is, it has been condemned righteously by the US administration, and by political and religious leaders worldwide. So while any jackass in America has the right to burn a book, or misbehave in so many ways, the point is, it's not being sanctioned by the administration. And that is the message that the media and people like Patreus has to get out there.

[Argus]

I think the good thing about it really is, it has been condemned righteously by the US administration, and by political and religious leaders worldwide. So while any jackass in America has the right to burn a book, or misbehave in so many ways, the point is, it's not being sanctioned by the administration. And that is the message that the media and people like Patreus has to get out there.

Every time some world leader condemens it it only adds to the media hype. The front of the BBC page is a picture of Obama condemning the book burning. No doubt Harper's condemnation will be a front page story in Canadian papers. Yesterday it was the pope, the day before that, American generals.

If I announced I was going to burn a bible would anyone approach Harper or Obama for a comment? Would the pope make a statement? Would there be international media coverage? It's not world leaders driving this it's the media's breathless coverage and their demand that every leader comment on it. I bet we even see condemnations from premiers and mayors next, as the media demand their opinion.

[Sir Bandelot]

Every time some world leader condemens it it only adds to the media hype. The front of the BBC page is a picture of Obama condemning the book burning. No doubt Harper's condemnation will be a front page story in Canadian papers. Yesterday it was the pope, the day before that, American generals.

They have no choice now but to do so. And although it adds to the hype, it at least adds in a way to try and calm things down. The alternative would be far worse, if a prominent leader did endorse the book burning.

If I announced I was going to burn a bible would anyone approach Harper or Obama for a comment? Would the pope make a statement? Would there be international media coverage? It's not world leaders driving this it's the media's breathless coverage and their demand that every leader comment on it.

That's right. But if you were to announce a bible burning and it was picked up by hundreds of media outlets, then you might get a response from someone in the leadership at some point. The media picks up on this one because it gets peoples attention at a time of controversy over islam. They inflame the situation, by their desire to sell more news articles. The whoredom of a system based purely on capitalism without moral restraint is insidious. Ultimately it will be our own undoing.

"The only thing devout muslims need to do to defeat western liberals, is nothing."

-Sir Bandelot

[Michael Hardner]

Let's see... a bible burning, done by a cleric in North America... would that rouse the media ?

Yes. Yes, I think it would.

This is a stupid an un-Christian act this person is doing, and it risks tarring all Christians as being as pin-headed as he is, much in the same way terrorist acts risk doing that for the adherents that commit them.

[bush_cheney2004]

....This is a stupid an un-Christian act this person is doing, and it risks tarring all Christians as being as pin-headed as he is, much in the same way terrorist acts risk doing that for the adherents that commit them.

Would is be better if 200 non-Christians burned the Qu'rans instead? It's already been done numerous times....the world did not end.

Edited September 9, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

Would is be better if 200 non-Christians burned the Qu'rans instead? It's already been done numerous times....the world did not end.

Better ? How do you mean ? News worthy ?

Maybe 200 times more newsworthy than if one nobody burned it. Which is to say, not that newsworthy.

A Christian cleric, though, with followers. Yes, newsworthy.

[bush_cheney2004]

Better ? How do you mean ? News worthy ?

No...I meant disassociated from "Christiandom".

Maybe 200 times more newsworthy than if one nobody burned it. Which is to say, not that newsworthy.

So it's not the burning that counts but rather who lights the match? Now that's a horse of a different color.

[Michael Hardner]

No...I meant disassociated from "Christiandom".

People who consider themselves Christian should follow the Golden Rule, I would think. Especially Christian clerics.

So it's not the burning that counts but rather who lights the match? Now that's a horse of a different color.

Sure. For newsworthiness, yes. Of course.

[bush_cheney2004]

People who consider themselves Christian should follow the Golden Rule, I would think. Especially Christian clerics.

You mean there's no "Golden Rule" for Islam? Why are you holding this or any Christian to such a high standard?

[eyeball]

Over throwing dictators and propping up constitutional governemnets is always a good idea, but I forget, you would have supported giving Hitler a free hand in europe so of course you feel differently about it.

I would have stayed out of World War 1 and left Europe to it's own devices, so Hitler would likely never have been an issue.

I agree supporting constitutional government's is a good idea. Which begs the question why you've invested so much effort in supporting the West's overthrow of things like Iran's constitutional government and it's support for the police-state that replaced it in 1953? You don't feel any different about this past event given how deeply entangled it is amongst the very tap root of causes that have led to things like the crazy-assed imams and preachers you're now crapping your pant's over today in 2010?

You need to give your head a shake.

[Michael Hardner]

You mean there's no "Golden Rule" for Islam? Why are you holding this or any Christian to such a high standard?

Hmmm.... what standard do you mean ?

We're talking about two things - newsworthiness and Christian-ness.

For the former, I have explained how it works. I don't consider somebody Christian who doesn't follow the Christian rule, with which I am familiar. I don't know what the rule is for other religions - it may be mushy, it may be clear. You can fill me in, if you like, but I think that the contradictory nature of holy books negates us from being able to call someone on their Jewish-ness or Muslim-ness for taking a single line of their scripture out of the whole, and acting on it.

For Christians, it's different because the Gospel indicated that Jesus said "this above all else" when he explained his Golden Rule. Therefore, no one can quote Leviticus or other harsh texts as being consistent with Christian teaching. At least not correctly. At least not in my opinion.

You can give me yours, if you disagree.

[bush_cheney2004]

Hmmm.... what standard do you mean ?

We're talking about two things - newsworthiness and Christian-ness.

Right, but you invoke a particular behaviour metric for this particular instance. All I'm saying is that one can't apply it here (i.e. Christianity) without also doing so to other belief systems.

For the former, I have explained how it works. I don't consider somebody Christian who doesn't follow the Christian rule, with which I am familiar. I don't know what the rule is for other religions - it may be mushy, it may be clear. You can fill me in, if you like, but I think that the contradictory nature of holy books negates us from being able to call someone on their Jewish-ness or Muslim-ness for taking a single line of their scripture out of the whole, and acting on it.

The concept of a "Golden Rule (Law)" predates Christianity by hundreds of years. There is one similar "do unto others..." reference in Matthew(?), but it is not original.

For Christians, it's different because the Gospel indicated that Jesus said "this above all else" when he explained his Golden Rule. Therefore, no one can quote Leviticus or other harsh texts as being consistent with Christian teaching. At least not correctly. At least not in my opinion.

I'm not a Christian, but that's not exactly how it went down. Christian teachings are as compromised as any other, but have been co-opted by social and economic progress.

[Michael Hardner]

Right, but you invoke a particular behaviour metric for this particular instance. All I'm saying is that one can't apply it here (i.e. Christianity) without also doing so to other belief systems.

Assuming those belief systems have such a standard. Often times, they don't.

The concept of a "Golden Rule (Law)" predates Christianity by hundreds of years. There is one similar "do unto others..." reference in Matthew(?), but it is not original.

Matthew is a gospel, which is supposed to be an account of Christ's teachings so I'm not sure what you're saying here. Likely, you're referring to Rabbi Hillel's statement, from which the GR was derived.

I'm not a Christian, but that's not exactly how it went down. Christian teachings are as compromised as any other, but have been co-opted by social and economic progress.

And others have been compromised by lack of progress, so ? Religious devotion isn't supposed to be dependent on one's economic status, but that's a fact of life. With regards to Christianity - the perversion of the bible is, in itself, to thank for the success of Christianity to a degree. The Reformation created a class of Christian money lenders (who ostensibly were sinning, in that they were lending money) and allowed for the modern economy and corporations to flourish.

Anyway...

[bush_cheney2004]

Assuming those belief systems have such a standard. Often times, they don't.

But many do, and shouldn't be discounted in this context. So an equal burden is realized.

Matthew is a gospel, which is supposed to be an account of Christ's teachings so I'm not sure what you're saying here. Likely, you're referring to Rabbi Hillel's statement, from which the GR was derived.

No, I'm just referring to far older philosophies and cultures. Christianity is very modern in comparison, and therefore necessarily un-original.

And others have been compromised by lack of progress, so ? Religious devotion isn't supposed to be dependent on one's economic status, but that's a fact of life. With regards to Christianity - the perversion of the bible is, in itself, to thank for the success of Christianity to a degree. The Reformation created a class of Christian money lenders (who ostensibly were sinning, in that they were lending money) and allowed for the modern economy and corporations to flourish.

Then we can agree that Islam has been stunted by a lack of economic and social "progress" compared to Christianity and Judaism.

[Michael Hardner]

But many do, and shouldn't be discounted in this context. So an equal burden is realized.

Many ? Which ones ?

Then we can agree that Islam has been stunted by a lack of economic and social "progress" compared to Christianity and Judaism.

Stunted is a values-laden word, so I wouldn't use that word. Religions that thrive in economic backwaters, such as say the southern US states, appear strange to us rich folk - how's that for rephrasing it ?