Burning Qurans?

[SOMALIA]

I myself, as a Muslim living in Turkey, agree with Somalia. I'm obviously offended, as we believe that the Quran is Allah's word verbatim, but there is nothing I can or should do.

This thread is actually starting to be like this one in circles, with one side asserting that nothing inherently illegal has been done and the other side dancing with moral values.

There is actually nothing left to argue, you either believe freedom needs to have limits and call for respect on both sides; or you see no difference between a book a quarter of the world holds more valuable than everything else in this world to just another piece of paper and justify the action based on the current laws.

Couldn't be said better man;p

 

[Thund91]

It wasn't a justification. My point is that there need not be a "justification" for it at all.

In my opinion it does. This isn't just about "burning some paper" as you say. Look at the big picture. It's promoting hatred against people who follow a religion that's already viewed negatively by a large amount of shithead Americans. Surely you don't want to spread hatred at all, especially since you think human rights > everything else? This just makes things 10x worse but with no real benefit.

 

[theamericandream38]

I myself, as a Muslim living in Turkey, agree with Somalia. I'm obviously offended, as we believe that the Quran is Allah's word verbatim, but there is nothing I can or should do.

This thread is actually starting to be like this one in circles, with one side asserting that nothing inherently illegal has been done and the other side dancing with moral values.

There is actually nothing left to argue, you either believe freedom needs to have limits and call for respect on both sides; or you see no difference between a book a quarter of the world holds more valuable than everything else in this world and just a piece of paper, so you justify the action based on the current laws.

Either way, I wish the priest good luck in his future endeavors.

The only problem I have with this argument is that by burning the Quran, this man is knowingly causing trouble for other people, not just himself. There are unreasonable people in this world who will see this man burning the Quran and immediately assume that all Americans, or at the very least Christians, despise Islam and burn it's holy book. This is the exact same thing as American people seeing the 9/11 attacks and assuming that all Muslims are violent people who take pleasure in murdering thousands of innocent people (as this man has clearly assumed). By burning the Quran, this man hurts not just his own reputation, but the reputation of every single person in his country (or at the very least, those people in his country who share his religious beliefs). Sure, the Quran is just another book to me, but I respect that many people in this world value it immensely. That is their choice, and I think that it is wrong to go out of one's way with the sole intent to anger or hurt others. Like someone pointed out earlier in the thread, this man wants to burn the Quran because of hatred and anger, not because he needs the heat or energy from the fire. This is not the way to respond to actions like those that occured on 9/11, as fighting hatred with more hatred is probably the most retarded and nonsensical thing imaginable.

 

[SOMALIA]

The chain of stereotyping will keep forming hatred and war which will keep cycling over and over unfortunately thanks to a number of evil lunatics.

 

[DM]

Now you're arguing moral relativity? I'm done.

This has nothing to do with morals and everything to do with tolerance of others. By burning a Qur'an, you might as well have resurrected Allah in flesh and blood and then burned him to death. You apparently fail to understand that the Qur'an isn't "just a stupid book," no matter how many people in this thread tell you otherwise. You are ignoring the values of the Islam culture and instead are pressing your own belief system on everyone.

I'm not some ethnocentric, as I limit this intolerance towards cultural attitudes that are unconditionally harmful towards others (i.e. the attitude towards rape in areas of Africa, Middle Eastern behavior towards women and their sexuality, Chinese persecution of Christians, etc.) DM may call me "bias" or some cultural bigot because I won't tolerate and will actively speak against such behavior, and I'm fine with that because I am.

Okay, number one: what is this "bias" bullshit? Are you making an ad hominem because you misread my post and thought I misspelled it? Or are you just being weird for the sake of being weird?

Second: you have just admitted to what I said, that you believe your views are the only right ones in this debate. If I read this paragraph correctly, your views on the Qur'an burning carry the most weight because you don't like what extremist sects of Islam do?

Ahh, I see I misspoke, my apologies. Intent makes no difference in a legal sense for me. While there are some cut and dry instances where intent is clear, there are many others where the intent of one's actions are open to interpretation, and for that reason, I believe that as long as there is one instance in which an action is permissible, then it should be allowed in all cases.

No biggie, this thread has actually gotten a little complex with all the tangential arguments.

And if this interpretation of intent were true, we would have no way to enforce Civil Rights statutes.

And I was not condoning his actions nor trying to justify them, merely attempting to point out through hyperbole the ridiculousness of this situation and some of the reactions by posters here. I can see now that I failed miserably on that front though.

I probably came back a little strongly as well, don't worry about it man. It's one big, stupid situation to begin with.

 

[Polis4rule]

I myself, as a Muslim living in Turkey, agree with Somalia. I'm obviously offended, as we believe that the Quran is Allah's word verbatim, but there is nothing I can or should do.

There is actually nothing left to argue, you either believe freedom needs to have limits and call for respect on both sides; or you see no difference between a book a quarter of the world holds more valuable than everything else in this world and just a piece of paper, so you justify the action based on the current laws.

And what would your opinion be of Muslims burning the Bible (which has been done, albeit on an extremist level)? Would you just let it slip or hold it to the same "laws" as you hold burning the Quran?

Additionally, where did you pull this quarter of the world number? There are more Christians in this world than there are Muslims (2.1 billion Christians as opposed to 1.1 billion Muslims), plus you're assuming that all of them will become very agitated if the Quran is burned. Maybe it has to do with culture, but if some Muslim extremist group started to burn Bibles, a lot of Christians would just not care or write it off as an extremist group (especially before 9/11).

All in all, the preacher is legally allowed to burn the Qurans as much as a Muslim group is allowed to burn Bibles in the US. Now, it is pretty stupid, on both a moral and practical levels. The vast majority of Muslims are not extremist, and the burning of Qurans will only turn public opinion of the US negative (more so). But I don't know why people are trying to say that the preacher can't do it by law.

And yes, the preacher should not burn the books due to the value the Quran has to Muslims and Muslim culture. Doing so will only incite more hatred, like I've said.

 

[SOMALIA]

It will inflame a riot/war, whatever you want to call it. I think it's safe to say that majority of people would like to avoid that scenario.

 

[Veedrock]

Additionally, where did you pull this quarter of the world number?

Pretty sure he was just rounding the statistic but here's one source, and that article is almost a year old, meaning the percentage is likely cemented now. That's not to say there aren't more Christians but Muslims are still a massive percentage of the population.

 

[Invective]

No biggie, this thread has actually gotten a little complex with all the tangential arguments.

And if this interpretation of intent were true, we would have no way to enforce Civil Rights statutes.

Yes, I suppose allowing leeway for the most obvious cases, but beyond those, where the intent can be misconstrued by different parties and that is where hold the most beef.
And as I understand it, most Civil Rights statutes deal with hate crimes, which I find ridiculous as the perceived race/nationality/gender/whatever should have no basis for the punishment (if I yell "I HATE YOU" and punch a white male, I would likely be tried for assault whereas if I did the same to a black male, I would probably be tried for a hate crime. How does that make sense?). And it seems I've gone off on another tangent.

I probably came back a little strongly as well, don't worry about it man. It's one big, stupid situation to begin with.

That it is, that it is. Just some asshole trolling Muslims as best I can figure.

 

[Bucky]

I don't think the act of burning the Quran itself is absolutely horrible, but it's the concept behind the act that poses several problems. And the fact that this has been given so much attention is only making it worse. Had the man who started the idea been completely ignored, there wouldn't be an issue. But the two biggest problems I see stemming from this are:

1. Yes, he's just burning a bunch of books; however, by burning the Quran and making a nation-wide fad out of it, you're sending the message that Islam will not be tolerated, that it is something unacceptable. Yes we have freedom of speech, but if this gets too far, it may very easily fall under the category of hate speech.

2. As a global community, we aren't as mature as we like to think we are. And historically speaking, once it becomes socially acceptable to ridicule or mock a particular group of people, for example burning the Quran or having a Draw Mohammed Day, it easily escalates into persecution; stripping a Muslim woman out of her covering or burning Muslims themselves. I think as a nation, we are very naive and ignorant of the consequences of actions that we prefer to brush off as small or meaningless. If this keeps up, we'll be headed straight for serious civil unrest.

Quite frankly I'm going to GTFO of America as soon as I finish school. What scares me is that just a few days ago, a group of guys burned down a mosque in Gainesville, Florida and another one was burned down in Tennessee. From what I heard, the guy isn't just planning to burn a bunch of Qurans, he's planning on burning down mosques as well on 9/11. But I suppose we'll see how far this gets.

 

[DM]

Yes, I suppose allowing leeway for the most obvious cases, but beyond those, where the intent can be misconstrued by different parties and that is where hold the most beef.
And as I understand it, most Civil Rights statutes deal with hate crimes, which I find ridiculous as the perceived race/nationality/gender/whatever should have no basis for the punishment (if I yell "I HATE YOU" and punch a white male, I would likely be tried for assault whereas if I did the same to a black male, I would probably be tried for a hate crime. How does that make sense?). And it seems I've gone off on another tangent.

That's how most people think of Civil Rights statutes, but what they do is protect certain distinct groups based on: race, color, sex, national origin, age, disability, among others... namely religion. No one can be discriminated against on account of their religious choices (not in everyday life, but I'm speaking of employment practices, private business practices, etc.). Yes, they deal with "hate crimes" in the basic sense of the phrase, but they do much more: they deal with the very subtle nuances of discrimination, things that would ordinarily get overlooked by people saying "that's life, too bad".

Sorry I helped the tangent, but as a law student, I love this stuff. Especially because I just started my Employment Discrimination Law class.

 

[Dragonking700]

Hello, all. I am a Christian. I want to make this very, very clear.

Let me give you some facts on this subject. The priest was going to cancel the burning, because he went to speak with the man who is building the mosque. but the man misled him and lied to him, so he decided to go through with the event anyways.

I DO NOT SUPPORT THE QURAN BURNING!!!! I think its a very, very stupid idea, and while I do not in any way LIKE the quran, and I believe the world would be better off without them, burning them does not help anyone at all.
what good will it do for christians? or mission is to spread the word of God. how many muslims are going to become christians because a priest burnt a whole bunch of qurans?
what people don't understand is that our job as christians is not to punish sin. that is for God to do. however, God uses the government, and previously the nation of Israel to carry out that task.
so once again, this is a bad thing. however, I wouldn't worry about it too much. the enemy might find some way to use it against us, and of course the government is going to go and apologize to everyone. but where the terrorists are from, bibles are burned at a much higher frequency. not only that, christians are killed and churches are burned, and girls have their bodies mutilated and are beaten, so I don't think the quran burning makes the US a barbaric, hate-mongering, evil nation.

still, i do not support it. I do not think it will cause that much harm, but i see no reason at all to support it. simply because it will DO NO GOOD. and quite possibly do harm.

 

[Mikazukinoyaiba]

This has nothing to do with morals and everything to do with tolerance of others. By burning a Qur'an, you might as well have resurrected Allah in flesh and blood and then burned him to death. You apparently fail to understand that the Qur'an isn't "just a stupid book," no matter how many people in this thread tell you otherwise. You are ignoring the values of the Islam culture and instead are pressing your own belief system on everyone.

It isn't that I ignore them, it is that I completely don't agree with them and yes I find it silly. As I said before, some people are just going to have to learn to grow thicker skin because honestly it seems pretty childish to me if they honestly think burning a Quran is akin to killing God.

Second: you have just admitted to what I said, that you believe your views are the only right ones in this debate. If I read this paragraph correctly, your views on the Qur'an burning carry the most weight because you don't like what extremist sects of Islam do?

Look around, I'm certainly am not unique in thinking my opinion is the correct one. Look in the mirror, you'll find someone else who also think their view is the correct one.

As for my views, yes I disapprove of the actions of extremist sects but I also fundamentally approve of the idea that any non-believer has to treat the Quran with the same respect as a believer would. If you would take any group and any item of adoration I'd still feel exactly the same, people want to shirk responsibility and somehow blame Quran burners for the violence that would ensue rather than place responsibility solely on the wingnuts.

I don't think me and you will ever come to some sort of agreement on this matter, our morals differ far too much.

 

[Firestorm]

It would be appropriate to bring up Canada's "hate speech" laws if we were discussing an issue occurring in Canada...

I was talking to Morm about something he said and you replied to it. I was just clarifying to make sure you knew that bit was not about American law.

To sum it up:

"People disagree and either it is because they want to argue with me or they are incompetent"

That's pretty damn insulting. I certainly am not arguing for arguments sake, I actually strongly disagree with the "symbolism" argument and I certainly do understand what "symbolism" is. However, what something "symbolizes" is still in your head, the meaning of a work of art for example isn't something you can objectively deduce, same goes for "symbolism" it is still an incredibly arbitrary thing. People are entitled to worship their statues, dolls, flags, books, etc.

However they shouldn't expect everyone else to seriously treat things the same way they do. I understand why the act is "seen" as more than just "burning some paper" but it doesn't change the fact that in reality, that is exactly what burning copies of the "Quran" exactly is, especially mass-produced copies. :/

Sorry, but I won't cuddle the delusions of people. The same paper that are used to make a copy of the Quran could also have been used for something else, in fact the very same tree may be in use right now to advertise a bikini model on some magazine somewhere else in the world. The paper isn't "holy" it is the words printed on them, which is thus an idea.

Any Muslim that gets upset then goes violent, is using the Quran burning as an excuse. They certainly have made a choice when they turned violent and if anything, their very mentality and that of the apologists can only result in one thing. Submission by fear, if you aren't Muslim you very well damn act like you are one or else.

I'm not getting behind that.


Yes I read the whole thing, from your crazy Islamic rants justifying going ape shit and than your ridiculous distinction between "preaching death" and "killing people" as if somehow that makes a difference. I chose to respond to the only claim that could be reasonably and objectively argued against, rather than your religious mindset.

But if you want me to respond in more detail:
1. Regarding the Muslims views on what burning the Quran means to them, see above. I don't care I think they are taking things way too seriously and basically are pissing themselves off.
2. If you "preach death" that is practically the same as killing people, you're rallying everyone else up and encouraging them that the Quran burners deserve death or that it is a punishment awaiting for them.

Seriously, how did that not cross your mind as being just as wrong? Honestly this type of mentality along with the "moderate" Islamic communities views that they disagree with the violent extremist groups but 'understand their motives' is pretty damning of the community as a whole. Supporting violence and killers, whether silently or not, puts you in the same bed as the extremists.

Yeah, I don't think you understand what a symbol is at all. Not to mention you for some reason think I'm defending reactions of those crying for violence.

I'm merely someone who understands that mass burning Qu'rans on the anniversary of the World Trade Centre bombings by a church leader in response to the building of a Muslim community centre and Mosque is quite different from "burning some paper". I believe it is hate speech (not hate crime), and although legal in the United States and perfectly within his rights, I believe it's absolutely disgusting and could be illegal in my country.

The only thing I'm arguing against is the ridiculous claim that all he's doing is burning some paper and that it doesn't mean anything more and that people are getting their panties in a knot for no reason. They have strong reason to be angry at this man, but it won't justify acts of violence.

 

[billymills]

Yeah, I don't think you understand what a symbol is at all. Not to mention you for some reason think I'm defending reactions of those crying for violence.

I think I have an idea of what a symbol is, including the fact that a symbol can be, and can be representative of anything. Someone might love the Harry Potter series so much that they may be opposed to it's burning. Someone else may have been scared in a fire and it may be against burning anything at all. It just happens that many people hold the same symbol. However holding any symbol above your own life is bordering on insanity. This idiot is obviously trying to antagonise hundreds of millions of people, and it's working because they're just as deluded as he is. Burning a book is not akin to harming anyone.

Qurans have been burnt in the past, and will be burnt in the future. Letting a single incident get under your skin is just silly. Also, if intent is all that important: he's trying to piss you off, why don't you just ignore him?

I'm merely someone who understands that mass burning Qu'rans on the anniversary of the World Trade Centre bombings by a church leader in response to the building of a Muslim community centre and Mosque is quite different from "burning some paper". I believe it is hate speech (not hate crime), and although legal in the United States and perfectly within his rights, I believe it's absolutely disgusting and could be illegal in my country.

Sure it's different, millions upon millions take that pile of paper to be sacred and can't be bothered to simply ignore the guy. I sure hope that's not illegal and never is, because it will snowball into even more 'freedom of religion' garbage.

The only thing I'm arguing against is the ridiculous claim that all he's doing is burning some paper and that it doesn't mean anything more and that people are getting their panties in a knot for no reason. They have strong reason to be angry at this man, but it won't justify acts of violence.

Burning books does not justify violence, agreed.

Even after all that, I'm still against the book burning on a matter of practicality. Extremists will use this against Western nations, and it will work. Why on earth would you give them more material to work with?

 

[Banedon]

The only problem I have with this argument is that by burning the Quran, this man is knowingly causing trouble for other people, not just himself. There are unreasonable people in this world who will see this man burning the Quran and immediately assume that all Americans, or at the very least Christians, despise Islam and burn it's holy book. This is the exact same thing as American people seeing the 9/11 attacks and assuming that all Muslims are violent people who take pleasure in murdering thousands of innocent people (as this man has clearly assumed). By burning the Quran, this man hurts not just his own reputation, but the reputation of every single person in his country (or at the very least, those people in his country who share his religious beliefs). Sure, the Quran is just another book to me, but I respect that many people in this world value it immensely. That is their choice, and I think that it is wrong to go out of one's way with the sole intent to anger or hurt others. Like someone pointed out earlier in the thread, this man wants to burn the Quran because of hatred and anger, not because he needs the heat or energy from the fire. This is not the way to respond to actions like those that occured on 9/11, as fighting hatred with more hatred is probably the most retarded and nonsensical thing imaginable.

It is only "knowingly causing trouble" if you want it to be. You, by taking offense, allow it to cause trouble. There is no other way it can cause trouble, unless you live next door to wherever the bonfire was planned to be, when you can feasibly complain about air pollution.

I completely agree with the rest of your post. I don't think it's wise to burn the Qur'an, but I definitely won't approve of forcibly stopping him from burning it either.

This has nothing to do with morals and everything to do with tolerance of others. By burning a Qur'an, you might as well have resurrected Allah in flesh and blood and then burned him to death. You apparently fail to understand that the Qur'an isn't "just a stupid book," no matter how many people in this thread tell you otherwise. You are ignoring the values of the Islam culture and instead are pressing your own belief system on everyone.

You're totally exaggerating. The Qur'an is, above all, a book. It is not a living being. If it were a living being then burning it would be outright against the law. But it's not a living being. It's a book. It may be a holy book but it is still a book.

I'll say here right now that I oppose burning a resurrected Allah in flesh and blood, and would wholeheartedly support the police intervening to save him - and I believe Mikazukinoyaiba thinks so as well.

I'm merely someone who understands that mass burning Qu'rans on the anniversary of the World Trade Centre bombings by a church leader in response to the building of a Muslim community centre and Mosque is quite different from "burning some paper". I believe it is hate speech (not hate crime), and although legal in the United States and perfectly within his rights, I believe it's absolutely disgusting and could be illegal in my country.

Of course everyone knows that this particular choice of date has its significance. Some people just choose to call it "burning some paper" because they are ... shall we say ... not so easily offended. And yes, I have no problems with burning Bibles. Like Qurans, Bibles are for all intents and purposes, books.

 

[Son of Disaster]

I'm going to agree with Mika. The guy isn't doing anything illegal. He may be bigoted racist and whatever more but just because that's how he is doesn't mean we should limit his right to peacefully express that. In the end we associate the meaning with base materials. Also i thought the Quran was only considered true and holy in Arabic. And noone has been pooping there pants over flags, bibles, and whatnot being burned.

 

[Invective]

That's how most people think of Civil Rights statutes, but what they do is protect certain distinct groups based on: race, color, sex, national origin, age, disability, among others... namely religion. No one can be discriminated against on account of their religious choices (not in everyday life, but I'm speaking of employment practices, private business practices, etc.). Yes, they deal with "hate crimes" in the basic sense of the phrase, but they do much more: they deal with the very subtle nuances of discrimination, things that would ordinarily get overlooked by people saying "that's life, too bad".

Sorry I helped the tangent, but as a law student, I love this stuff. Especially because I just started my Employment Discrimination Law class.

Ahhh yes, I concede on these points. Stuff like the two ADA's completely slipped my mind in regards to Civil Rights. However, even these occasions are never open-and-close and still open to interpretation and scrutinizing. I suppose the current system is the easiest without being overly complicated and biased though.

I'll drop this tangent however; and I must admit these topics are enjoyable, especially as I am focusing my education on political science with an emphasis in law.


EDIT:

I don't believe that groups should be protected from demonstration/insult/commentary simply because they will be offended.

They aren't, at least in American law, as was decided in Texas vs. Johnson

The fact that an audience takes offense to certain ideas or expression, the Court found, does not justify prohibitions of speech. The Court also held that state officials did not have the authority to designate symbols to be used to communicate only limited sets of messages, noting that "f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

 

[Morm]

Er, you realize you live in a country with moderated free speech as Vincent proposed right?

Late on the draw, sorry.

Anyways, yeah I realize that, but I was trying to iterate my own personal thoughts on it. I don't believe that groups should be protected from demonstration/insult/commentary simply because they will be offended.

 

[petrie911]

1. Yes, he's just burning a bunch of books; however, by burning the Quran and making a nation-wide fad out of it, you're sending the message that Islam will not be tolerated, that it is something unacceptable. Yes we have freedom of speech, but if this gets too far, it may very easily fall under the category of hate speech.

Which still falls under the category of free speech. If he wants to say that all Muslims are mentally defective, inherently violent, and a detriment to the world, he has every right to do so. Just as you have every right to disagree with him and decry him and his statements.

2. As a global community, we aren't as mature as we like to think we are. And historically speaking, once it becomes socially acceptable to ridicule or mock a particular group of people, for example burning the Quran or having a Draw Mohammed Day, it easily escalates into persecution; stripping a Muslim woman out of her covering or burning Muslims themselves. I think as a nation, we are very naive and ignorant of the consequences of actions that we prefer to brush off as small or meaningless. If this keeps up, we'll be headed straight for serious civil unrest.

There is a very large difference between the political statement he is making and assault. He is not hurting anyone, and he is expressing his beliefs. If he were to burn down a mosque, for example, then he would be guilty of a crime and should be prosecuted accordingly.

The real problem is going the other direction. Restricting free speech escalates much more easily. As soon as you start making speech that offends others illegal, you run into the problem that anyone can find any speech offensive. Where do you stop?

For the record, I don't support what this guy is doing. At all. But, in the words of Evelyn Beatrice Hall, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

 

[Treadshot A1]

*sigh*

I have no religion, so i am neither for or against the Quran (sp?) and not for or against the church person that's wanting to burn them either.

My only thing to say is that, while i believe it wrong to burn the Quran just because a bunch of people who believe in it are extremists (the rest aren't, i would believe), the law has nothing against it, and therefore there's nothing i can do.

In the same vein, if Muslims started burning the Bible in their country, and it's not against their laws (i would assume it's been done already), then so be it. Nothing i can do about it. Get over it, move on.

I do, however, think it unfair to have the FBI and other media pressure to force that church to call it off. Heck, they worry about publicity of it to get to Muslims. Well, if you hadn't gone and made a big Scandal out of it, there wouldn't be any publicity. So the fault is the media's, you made a big deal of it, accept the consequences. Turn off your cameras, and this thing just goes by unnoticed.

I mean, it's not like those extremists don't know we're gonna commemorate the anniversary of 9/11, it's not like they don't know there are people who hate them. It's not like this is even the most hate inducing thing possible that he could have done. Just let it slide, no one knows, day goes by, let people mourn, and then live life as usual.

Though, yeah, that church does have to take some of the blame for making it so open anyways. I mean, put a big sign out in front and think no one's gonna tell the media? Yeah right. If you'd just laid low, then you would have been fine. You would have burned them, and by then it would've been too late for even the FBI to stop you.

I end with this quote from Plopper, because i too think this argument will get nowhere.

This thread is actually starting to be like this one in circles, with one side asserting that nothing inherently illegal has been done and the other side dancing with moral values.

 

[gvmgvm40]

And what would your opinion be of Muslims burning the Bible (which has been done, albeit on an extremist level)? Would you just let it slip or hold it to the same "laws" as you hold burning the Quran?

I would oppose it as much as I do now.

Additionally, where did you pull this quarter of the world number? There are more Christians in this world than there are Muslims (2.1 billion Christians as opposed to 1.1 billion Muslims), plus you're assuming that all of them will become very agitated if the Quran is burned.

Firestorm has answered this, but here's another source which claims ~%23 of the world population is Muslim.

I'm not claiming that there are more Muslims than Christians, and I am not very agitated either, just a bit offended. I'm not assuming every Muslim will be screaming "DEATH TO AMERICA". If a fuckhole claimed he'd make a bonfire of Bibles in a Muslim country I'd oppose it as much as I do now. The fact that people still associate Islam with terrorism and brutality, and there are actually people who think they are doing a good deed by burning mosques and Qurans; and there are actually people supporting/not opposing this makes me die a little inside, that is all.

And yes, the preacher should not burn the books due to the value the Quran has to Muslims and Muslim culture. Doing so will only incite more hatred, like I've said.

I totally agree.

...so once again, this is a bad thing. however, I wouldn't worry about it too much. the enemy might find some way to use it against us, and of course the government is going to go and apologize to everyone. but where the terrorists are from, bibles are burned at a much higher frequency. not only that, christians are killed and churches are burned, and girls have their bodies mutilated and are beaten...

I heard it was them who summoned the boogieman, too.

 

[Testing...]

Everyone needs to stop taking themselves so seriously

 

[Bucky]

Which still falls under the category of free speech. If he wants to say that all Muslims are mentally defective, inherently violent, and a detriment to the world, he has every right to do so. Just as you have every right to disagree with him and decry him and his statements.

I never meant that he doesn't have the right to do so, I was only pointing out the problems something like this could lead to. But yeah, he has the right to do so just like any other American has the right to burn the flag (except Muslims because we all know where that would lead).

 

[aVocado]

They're not burning the Qur'an to get at Al Qaeda, they're burning the Qur'an to show Muslims worldwide that they are disliked greatly by certain sects of extremist American religiophytes. Huge difference.

This.

They have no reason to hate us, really.

If the terrorist that blew up at 9/11 was Christian or of any other religion, none of this mess would have happened.


We don't hate America, i personally love speaking in English more than Arabic, being a Middle Eastern myself.


Also, where are you getting the ideas about the Bible being burned here ? I have never seen a holy book being burned (And I'd go against it). You don't understand that we all worship the same god, do you ?


Most of the Christians think we are terrorist, but how do they know ? Just because the terrorist who blew up the WTC at 9/11 was Muslim doesn't mean all Muslims are terrorists, it doesn't mean all Middle Easterns are.