Don't burn the Quran, but beheadings are OK...

[joeydb]

Anybody else see a problem with this?

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/09/i...ng-politician/

No. That guys hair is ridiculous. He looks like the lead singer of A Flock of Seagulls.

[dellinger63]

the same sensitivity and consideration expected in NYC, from the muslims wanting a mosque at ground zero, should be displayed by these yahoos wanting to burn Korans. Both groups have more in common than they will ever realize.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

the same sensitivity and consideration expected in NYC, from the muslims wanting a mosque at ground zero, should be displayed by these yahoos wanting to burn Korans. Both groups have more in common than they will ever realize.

exactly. consistency is nice

White House is completely inconsistent.

Mosque is fine, but Quran burning is condemned (per SOS Clinton).

At least GBBob and Mira display consistency.

I happen to think both are terrible idea's and should not be happening!

[dagolfer33]

Scuds prolly got a plane ticket to Gainesville.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

exactly. consistency is nice

White House is completely inconsistent.

Mosque is fine, but Quran burning is condemned (per SOS Clinton).

At least GBBob and Mira display consistency.

I happen to think both are terrible idea's and should not be happening!

Of course they both have the right to do it, but it's foolish to try to place one group trying to freely practice their religion at some moral equivalence as a group actively doing nothing but causing a scene by trashing another religion and burning their holy book, whether they agree with it or not.

If Muslims wanted to open an anti-Christian center two blocks from Ground Zero and have piss on the Bible parties, or a center that celebrated the perpetrators of 9/11 as glorious examples of what Muslims are all about, then maybe you'd have a point, but as far as I can tell, they don't, so in turn, you don't.

They can all do whatever they want, because it's their right, but that's just ridiculous to pretend these two are the exact same thing. The only things they really have in common are 1.) They both have the right to do it 2.) Some people oppose each of them.

No more than that, because they're worlds apart, and it's not a matter of "inconsistency" to point that out.

[clyde]

Shoot all people in the steeple who have agendas and false erogenous zones.



ALL of them.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Of course they both have the right to do it, but it's foolish to try to place one group trying to freely practice their religion at some moral equivalence as a group actively doing nothing but causing a scene by trashing another religion and burning their holy book, whether they agree with it or not.

If Muslims wanted to open an anti-Christian center two blocks from Ground Zero and have piss on the Bible parties, or a center that celebrated the perpetrators of 9/11 as glorious examples of what Muslims are all about, then maybe you'd have a point, but as far as I can tell, they don't, so in turn, you don't.

They can all do whatever they want, because it's their right, but that's just ridiculous to pretend these two are the exact same thing. The only things they really have in common are 1.) They both have the right to do it 2.) Some people oppose each of them.

No more than that, because they're worlds apart, and it's not a matter of "inconsistency" to point that out.

stop being inconsistent. Both actions are covered under that precious 1st amendment. They are the same thing when you look at it through the eyes of the Constitution.

Both actions are insensitive. Muslim terrorists killed 3k at ground zero and now there will be a muslim mosque right there. Insensitive to a lot of New Yorkers. If the Iman cared, or had any class, he'd understand that.

The Koran burning party is insensitive to a religion. Also happens to be a relgion that the radicals get riled up to kill others when they see Korans burning on tv. If the pastor had any brains, or class, he'd understand that.

The Koran burning party also happens to be idiotic and useless. The Muslim mosque can move down the street and nobody would have a problem.

They are both insensitive to different groups of people.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

Also happens to be a relgion that the radicals get riled up to kill others when they see Korans burning on tv.

So what? Are we supposed to be all scared now? Keep the military on alert and whoever tries something against our guys won't be around too long.

Bottom line: since the moderates are not speaking out and only the radicals have the microphone, "kill the infidels" and all that bull... they are not going to get much tolerance as they themselves give none.

How's this: would the protests get bigger if instead of burning one Quran they burn 10, 100, 1000, or 10,000? When you start out at maximum shrillness and riot-like behavior, it's tough to go up from there.

How does this book burning -- which I am not supporting -- compare to the beheadings of Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, and several others? Where's our protests and reaction?

They burn our flag all the time over there -- and the Star of David too. They burn our leaders in effigy. They rioted over cartoons published in Denmark. Maybe this pastor in Florida sees it as a little payback.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

stop being inconsistent. Both actions are covered under that precious 1st amendment. They are the same thing when you look at it through the eyes of the Constitution.

Both actions are insensitive. Muslim terrorists killed 3k at ground zero and now there will be a muslim mosque right there. Insensitive to a lot of New Yorkers. If the Iman cared, or had any class, he'd understand that.

The Koran burning party is insensitive to a religion. Also happens to be a relgion that the radicals get riled up to kill others when they see Korans burning on tv. If the pastor had any brains, or class, he'd understand that.

The Koran burning party also happens to be idiotic and useless. The Muslim mosque can move down the street and nobody would have a problem.

They are both insensitive to different groups of people.

I certainly don't want to "pull a Riot," but I am forced to when I say: can you read?

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Of course they both have the right to do it.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

They can all do whatever they want, because it's their right

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

1.) They both have the right to do it

I was hoping that three times in one single post would be more than enough for you to realize that there's no issue of consistency, as you'll be hard-pressed to find a place where I said they shouldn't burn the Koran....don't waste your time looking, because I didn't say it.

But to compare using a right to freely practice a religion with using a right to exercise free speech for no other reason than to antagonize a religion is insane. Of course (here, I'll say it again for clarity), they're the same in that they both have the right to do it, but they're hardly the same thing in any other way.

One is nasty and done out of sheer, admitted animus. The other is done out of the desire to freely practice religion. You're way too bright to not see any distinction at all and think that it's just ho-hum, people are offended, those are exactly the same thing. That's among the more pathetic attempts at moral equivalence I've ever seen.

Oh, and:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

and now there will be a muslim mosque right there.

What do you mean "now there will be?"

There already is one. Hysteria overload.

[Antitrust32]

you dont think that the Mosque in ground zero is offensive, so that is where we differ.

I dont think they are equally offensive. One is insensitive and the other is insensitive and idiotic. But they do share some common traits, that you dont see.

I was pointing out the that WH has two different opinions on fairly similar free speech issues. You came back with the.. "you have no point".

We differ on the common theme of the two issues.

I'm all for both not happening... the pastor angers me more because he is putting lives in danger.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

you dont think that the Mosque in ground zero is offensive, so that is where we differ.

I dont think they are equally offensive. One is insensitive and the other is insensitive and idiotic. But they do share some common traits, that you dont see.

I was pointing out the that WH has two different opinions on fairly similar free speech issues. You came back with the.. "you have no point".

We differ on the common theme of the two issues.

I'm all for both not happening... the pastor angers me more because he is putting lives in danger.

Well, I said that because I think you have no point that they should deserve the same kind of response, because they're completely different things by way of their root causes. One is free practice of religion for no other reason than to freely practice religion. The other is exercise of freedom of speech for no other reason than to antagonize an entire religion. They're very dissimilar in nearly every regard besides 1.) people exercising their right to do things and 2.) certain groups seeing them as insensitive. Things being insensitive to certain groups of people does not mean that they necessarily deserve similar responses.

Passing gas on a crowded train is insensitive to certain groups of people, as is murdering a family of six to other groups of people.

I wouldn't imagine that those two exactly similar things that are insensitive to certain groups of people should deserve the same response.

Of course I'm being hyperbolic with that, but just because things are "insensitive" to groups of people does not mean they should be treated equally just based on the sheer fact that certain people are offended by them.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by joeydb

So what? Are we supposed to be all scared now? Keep the military on alert and whoever tries something against our guys won't be around too long.

Bottom line: since the moderates are not speaking out and only the radicals have the microphone, "kill the infidels" and all that bull... they are not going to get much tolerance as they themselves give none.

How's this: would the protests get bigger if instead of burning one Quran they burn 10, 100, 1000, or 10,000? When you start out at maximum shrillness and riot-like behavior, it's tough to go up from there.

How does this book burning -- which I am not supporting -- compare to the beheadings of Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, and several others? Where's our protests and reaction?

They burn our flag all the time over there -- and the Star of David too. They burn our leaders in effigy. They rioted over cartoons published in Denmark. Maybe this pastor in Florida sees it as a little payback.

The pastor in Florida doesnt care about Jesus, his payback, the Muslims.. he cares about having his 15 minutes of fame and say "look what I can do". Most all churches like his are the same.. absolutely ridiculous to the point where you have to question the sanity of the members. Which is why its been around for 24 years and only has 50 members.

My post to BWS wasnt comparing burning books to beheadings. Not at all. It was about the similarities between Koran burning and Mosque building.

You dont think there was any reaction about beheadings? Dont act like I'm some Muslim apologist because I dont think this pastor should be holding his event. I have zero respect for the Islam religion. I'm quite sure my posts on the subject will confirm that.

The pastor is only doing this for himself, and he is just pouring fuel on a fire that is already very hot to begin with. He's an un-american idiot.

If he cared at all about his supposed message, and this burning meant anything to him.. he wouldnt be making it into a media event.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Well, I said that because I think you have no point that they should deserve the same kind of response, because they're completely different things by way of their root causes. One is free practice of religion for no other reason than to freely practice religion. The other is exercise of freedom of speech for no other reason than to antagonize an entire religion. They're very dissimilar in nearly every regard besides 1.) people exercising their right to do things and 2.) certain groups seeing them as insensitive. Things being insensitive to certain groups of people does not mean that they necessarily deserve similar responses.

Passing gas on a crowded train is insensitive to certain groups of people, as is murdering a family of six to other groups of people.

I wouldn't imagine that those two exactly similar things that are insensitive to certain groups of people should deserve the same response.

Of course I'm being hyperbolic with that, but just because things are "insensitive" to groups of people does not mean they should be treated equally just based on the sheer fact that certain people are offended by them.

But 3,000 lives lost & the WTC crashing down wasnt some little event like passing gas on a crowded train. The NYC mosque is a big deal to a lot of Americans. Just like burning books is a big deal to Muslims.

Where they differ is that this pastor is a huge idiot who is only looking for some spotlight.. and the Mosque Imam just doesnt care if he is offending New Yorkers and Americans. His apathy is obvious because he wont even look into moving the mosque, eventhough many people are deeply offended.

We are not going to see eye to eye on the Mosque issue. But its not like I disagree with you on the Koran burning party.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

But 3,000 lives lost & the WTC crashing down wasnt some little event like passing gas on a crowded train. The NYC mosque is a big deal to a lot of Americans. Just like burning books is a big deal to Muslims.

Where they differ is that this pastor is a huge idiot who is only looking for some spotlight.. and the Mosque Imam just doesnt care if he is offending New Yorkers and Americans. His apathy is obvious because he wont even look into moving the mosque, eventhough many people are deeply offended.

We are not going to see eye to eye on the Mosque issue. But its not like I disagree with you on the Koran burning party.

And where we disagree is that he shouldn't have to -- that's not what freedom of religion is all about -- when we like it, it's all good, but when we don't like it then we should kindly ask people to forego certain parts of it to make us happy. Sure, they say, go ahead and practice your religion...just when and where we're comfortable with it?

That's not how it works.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Of course they both have the right to do it, but it's foolish to try to place one group trying to freely practice their religion at some moral equivalence as a group actively doing nothing but causing a scene by trashing another religion and burning their holy book, whether they agree with it or not.

One is irrational, impulsive, and trashy and the other is rational, calculated and "classy"

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

If Muslims wanted to open an anti-Christian center two blocks from Ground Zero and have piss on the Bible parties, or a center that celebrated the perpetrators of 9/11 as glorious examples of what Muslims are all about, then maybe you'd have a point, but as far as I can tell, they don't, so in turn, you don't.

They don't because their mere presence is a much better FU. It's quite brilliant.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

They can all do whatever they want, because it's their right, but that's just ridiculous to pretend these two are the exact same thing. The only things they really have in common are 1.) They both have the right to do it 2.) Some people oppose each of them.

No more than that, because they're worlds apart, and it's not a matter of "inconsistency" to point that out.

They both believe in fairy tales.

[clyde]

Beelzebub...make it stop.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

They both believe in fairy tales.

If two schizophrenics hear voices -- one hears a voice always telling him to kill you, and the other hears a voice always telling him to be kind to others, which one would you rather hang out with?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

And where we disagree is that he shouldn't have to -- that's not what freedom of religion is all about -- when we like it, it's all good, but when we don't like it then we should kindly ask people to forego certain parts of it to make us happy. Sure, they say, go ahead and practice your religion...just when and where we're comfortable with it?

That's not how it works.

I dont think the Mosque should HAVE to move. Its a protected right. I think they SHOULD move out of respect. If the Imam had a little heart, he should be able to understand that.

The pastor has a protected right to burn the books. He should not do that, and I dont have to get into the reasons why he shouldnt because they are obvious. The book burning pisses me off a lot more that the Mosque because of the ramifications overseas. If this causes one additional death or beheading, then hopefully karma will visit this stupid Pastor.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I dont think the Mosque should HAVE to move. Its a protected right. I think they SHOULD move out of respect. If the Imam had a little heart, he should be able to understand that.

The pastor has a protected right to burn the books. He should not do that, and I dont have to get into the reasons why he shouldnt because they are obvious. The book burning pisses me off a lot more that the Mosque because of the ramifications overseas. If this causes one additional death or beheading, then hopefully karma will visit this stupid Pastor.

And that's, as you said, the core of where we disagree, because I feel like if they move it because people don't like it, then that's essentially the same thing as having subverted freedom of religion, just not through officially mandated channels.

To me, that's a distinction without a difference -- saying that they shouldn't HAVE to move from where they want to freely practice their religion, but they should move it anyway. The pressure leads to the same endgame, that freedom of religion really doesn't come out as free as we've pretended it has been all this time just because it's some group we don't like.

And yes, I understand the semantic issue between "having" to move and thinking they "should" move, but if public outrage and offense causes the same thing in the end, I feel like it's essentially the same thing, and that's not how we should be doing things, with majorities dictating which rights minorities should have full and unfettered access to -- sound familiar?