CreepyPirate wrote:
Ho humm. On one hand i find it funny that they get there nickers in a twist so much over a book. On the other hand this chump is only really speaking out and taking action cause it's not his religion. 9/11 is just an excuse for him to bash someone elses beliefs.
ON THE OTHER OTHER HAND (i have 4 hands) if i got a bible, a box and went and stood in a city in Iraq and preached christianity how long would i last i wonder.
Of course it's not a coincidence that this has all kicked off on the anniversary of 9/11. But like you elude to, he does have some justification.
ryan1 wrote:
Duke, I wouldn't say that Islam is inherently more dangerous than Christianity. The Bible has clear 'kill the infidel' passages throughout the old testament. The reason that Christianity appears to be less harmful is because they were removed from political power. If Christianity were given America as a theocracy, it would be dark times indeed -- probably very similar to what we see in theocratic Islamic countries.
I think there are some elements of Islam that make it inherently less tolerant than, for example, Christianity. But like you say, the Christian ideology has been tamed by society much more than Islam.
Ranging God wrote:
He has teh right to do that, just like they have the right to build the mosque near 9/11 ground zero. What he is doing is not helping the situation, but the situation shouldn thave happened anyways. I think that there isnt a single reason why the Muslims who are building hte mosque cant built it somewhere a little farther.
I don't really have an opinion on the mosque issue, but it seems quite simple to me. There are a group of people who, right or wrong, have a specific reason why they don't want the mosque to be built there. However the people building the mosque don't seem to have a real reason why it
should be built there, rather than somewhere else. So whichever "side" you're on, it therefore seems sensible to just move it, right?
1 Stone Pwn wrote:
I think that it's absolutely disgusting what that church is doing. True, they have freedom of speech, etc., but will burning the Koran really make anything better for them? How would they feel if someone burned Bibles openly on the anniversary of some atrocity committed by fundamentalist Christians? (The analogy doesn't quite work, but you get the point)
Also, most all of the Muslims I know interpret jihad as a metaphorical holy war, similar to Christianity's battle against "evil". If they wanted to, someone could find an excuse in the Bible that told them to "kill nonbelievers" by interpreting it literally.
I don't care what the church hopes to achieve, and whether or not it succeeds really doesn't bother me. But freedom of speech is important, even if what you have to say may offend someone. We can't all live our lives tiptoeing around everyone else just in case they may not like what we have to hear. As for burning the Bibles, people probably wouldn't like it, but there would be one big difference- they wouldn't respond in such an aggressive and frankly ridiculous manner.
As for the Christian's "holy battle", the Bible may well say to "kill nonbelievers", but the difference is, nobody actually does it. I dare say in other religions there's similar teachings, but Islam is the only religion that actually carries it out. That's the difference.
1 Stone Pwn wrote:
I think that these kinds of people burning the Koran gives as bad a name to Christianity as extremist terrorists give to Islam.
You're comparing burning a dozen books to suicide bombs and religious "martyrdom"?!
dafin0 wrote:
The pastor has no right to do this.
He has every right to do this. I've said it before and I'll say it again- IT'S A BOOK. People are only "insulted" by it because of the symbolism THEY GIVE IT. I could say that a book symbolises whatever I want it to, and then use someone burning as an excuse to burn down embassies and blow up an shopping centre, but does that make me justified?
1 Stone Pwn wrote:
As dafin0 said, just like it was "cool" to discriminate against blacks in the '50s and such, it is now "cool" to discriminate against Muslims.
It's totally different. In the '50s people discriminated against black people AND IT ACTUALLY MEANT SOMETHING because it actually made a difference to peoples' lives. This is just burning a book, and if it weren't for all the media attention, nobody would be any the wiser, and nobody would care! It's a book, and you can label it what you want, and claim it symbolises whatever you want, but that doesn't make it discriminatory.