Church Plans Quran Burning on Sept. 11th

[Woodrow]

What I'm saying is, understand the corruption of any system and the ease with which young, destitute, youth in extremely poor areas can be turned to violent beliefs. Germany's Weimar Republic, post-colonial Africa and South America, Batista's Cuba, Northern Ireland, Chechnya, Czarist Russia, and the majority of the Middle East are all examples of restless young men and women who fall victim to idealogues and zealots who promise something better than poverty, isolation, and unimportance: they offer a cause, a rallying point, and a sense of belonging. Why do urban youth join gangs? Because we all want to be a part of something, and for youth who have yet to formulate a complete sense of self and personal identity and who strive for some sort of meaning, radicals offer seemingly attractive options. These believers are still incredibly dangerous, but there are reasons people follow different paths.

I'm not defending anyone, just trying to examine why, so I better understand how to combat the threats they pose.

 

[nawainwright]

Why so defensive?

Because I make an objective observation about history I must have been brainwashed by socialistic atheists? Don't presume to know my background. I have never had anyone make this comparison to me, it's just something I have found interesting. I didn't attack anyone. I'm not questioning your god, motivations, or faith.

Every time there's an argument about Islam being violent someone always feels the need to point out that "christians" had the crusade, so everybody's the same. Its hardly an objective observation, it is a subjective observation that is taught as objectivism. If you read the history, that is the actual history as opposed to the processed version w/commentary, it is clear they were power-based "crusades" with political motivations. Many christians opposed them, many christians were drafted into them, many people used their state religion to justify them. The history is there for people to read....there is no excuse for the ignorance.

I guess you could say I wasn't so much defensive as I was aggressive

 

[Tom Sawyer]

This was not your original statement. You said Jesus asked for Jesus' enemies to be brought before Jesus and slaughtered at Jesus' feet:

Now you claim to understand the concept of a parable, when clearly you didn't in the original post. Either that, or you need to brush up on how pronouns work.

Oh, Irwin.
You're still just as thorny and religiously insane as before... but now with a dash less perceptiveness. Jesus of Nazareth apparently did not claim as I said he claimed. Not at all. I was and am completely wrong about that.

Now give me some time and I'll dig through and find the TRULY loving verses in which the Lord 'God' DOES command slaughter. "Mine eyes have heard the rout of my wicked foes," for one... and many more.

To get this back on track, though... while I don't quite like you, I almost respect you... you're three times the man any mussie ever could be to me, Irwin. Many kisses, gorgeous. Mwah!

 

[Fletch]

Who's Irwin? I thought he was killed by a stingray.

FWIW, I can fully agree that the God of the Old Testament struck a very different tone than Jesus did. I will also admit that I have not completely integrated my understanding of how one relates to the other. But when we're talking about Jesus, I'm pretty sure I've got His stuff figured out.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Who's Irwin? I thought he was killed by a stingray.

Chevy Chase... as Fletch...

tagline don't call him Irwin...

REALLY?

ORLY?

 

[Fletch]

Chevy Chase... as Fletch...

tagline don't call him Irwin...

REALLY?

ORLY?

Ah... It's been a long time since I saw the movie, and it didn't leave as big an impression as others have.

 

[TopDog]

I just want to chime in with a couple of things.

We (anyone not a Muslim) is an enemy. Because the Muslim's have declared it so. We (anyone not a Muslim) are at war with Islam, regardless if you chose to be or not. They have chosen for you.

In war you need to preserve what you are fighting for. Not become as bad as the enemy. Burning flags, burning books, murdering innocents, torturing and maiming people are all hallmarks of Islam. Not Christianity, to do the same things the Muslims do make you as bad as them. The statement you make by burning books is not we think this is wrong but rather we are as full of hate as they are and are willing to prove it by our actions.

Actions always speak louder than words.

 

[revance]

Ok, I stopped at page 9, but I'm going to put my $0.02 in.

I am a Christian... to me the koran is nothing more than a pile of paper. I do not believe what it says. To me it holds no religious meaning or power. Burning it is simply burning a book.

If you also believe the koran to be nothing more than a stack of bound paper, you should not believe that you are performing any kind of service to God by burning it. You are not destroying evil... you are merely burning a book.

With that in mind, ask yourself... why do you want to burn it?

You want to burn it to express hatred towards muslims. You want to do it to make YOURSELF feel good. You want to do it to upset muslims. THIS is why Christ would condemn it. If you truly believe those books are somehow magic or sacred and burning them is somehow destroying evil, you need to reevaluate yourself as a Christian. Otherwise you are just selfishly expressing hatred to satisfy your own evil needs. I admit I have done the same. I thought "draw Muhammad day" was funny. However I admit that my reason for being amused was the same reason I laugh at crude humor... I would never try to claim that it was a Christian act.

 

[revance]

+1 for South Park making a political statement on the inequality between Islam and Christianity in the media, politics, etc.

-1 for burning korans "in the name of God".

If you want to do it to be a jerk and tick off some muslims, by all means do it. Please don't pretend it is somehow a Christian act that is going to save us all from the evils of Islam.

 

[JBusch8899]

I just want to chime in with a couple of things.

We (anyone not a Muslim) is an enemy. Because the Muslim's have declared it so. We (anyone not a Muslim) are at war with Islam, regardless if you chose to be or not. They have chosen for you.

In war you need to preserve what you are fighting for. Not become as bad as the enemy. Burning flags, burning books, murdering innocents, torturing and maiming people are all hallmarks of Islam. Not Christianity, to do the same things the Muslims do make you as bad as them. The statement you make by burning books is not we think this is wrong but rather we are as full of hate as they are and are willing to prove it by our actions.

Actions always speak louder than words.

Thus every Muslim have declared every non Muslim as an enemy? Perhaps you instead meant a majority of its leadership?

Every person has free will to make their own such determinations, as a person is not their religion.

 

[Woodrow]

If you read the history, that is the actual history as opposed to the processed version w/commentary, it is clear they were power-based "crusades" with political motivations. Many christians opposed them, many christians were drafted into them, many people used their state religion to justify them. The history is there for people to read....there is no excuse for the ignorance.

I guess you could say I wasn't so much defensive as I was aggressive

Many Christians opposed them? What Christians are you talking about? The majority of people weren't so much Christians as destitute peasants who worked the lands of nobility trying to cull the favor of the pope and other royalty. There was no conscientious objectors and there is no literature describing such. I really don't care what revisionist crap you've been told or think you've read. Rewriting history is one of the biggest sins committed in modern time and I have no patience for those who would filter the past and re-structure it for their own needs. As I said, you can't assign a Twenty-first Century conscience on the Medieval world. I was wrong, you're not getting defensive of your religion, it's your conveniently re-constructed version of history you are defending. You're in good company, it was a favorite past time of the Bolsheviks.

 

[TopDog]

Thus every Muslim have declared every non Muslim as an enemy? Perhaps you instead meant a majority of its leadership?

Every person has free will to make their own such determinations, as a person is not their religion.

Good Point. Well worth considering.

As to your statement: "Thus every Muslim have declared every non Muslim as an enemy? Perhaps you instead meant a majority of its leadership? "

No I didn't. Many will argue that the Koran teaches (not just the leadership) that all non Muslims are to be converted by any means. Thus in essence declaring all non Muslims an enemy. I have not read the Koran. I base that opinion on what I have read, many excerpts from it and commentary supporting this line of thinking. Could I be wrong along with so many others? Sure I could be wrong...

Read it as you will. I think the average Joe schmuck Muslim is more interested in a decent life for himself and his family than killing / converting non Muslims. As Muslims across the world spread hate, murder, terrorists acts, killing and maiming with zeal and joy without much retort from the majority of Muslims. I'm inclined to believe that they the majority condone it.

It's going to take a lot to convince me that the Muslims in general have not declared non Muslims the enemy as I have ears, eyes and still the ability to think and reason for myself.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Busch, give us your opinion on Muslims in Europe, they're political agenda, and the violence they are spiking, much of it originates with the Koran.

You are certainly an intelligent fellow, so I look forward to a good read

 

[nawainwright]

Many Christians opposed them? What Christians are you talking about? The majority of people weren't so much Christians as destitute peasants who worked the lands of nobility trying to cull the favor of the pope and other royalty. You tool bag, there was no conscientious objectors and there is no literature describing such. I really don't care what revisionist crap you've been told or think you've read. Rewriting history is one of the biggest sins committed in modern time and I have no patience for those who would filter the past and re-structure it for their own needs. As I said, you can't assign a Twenty-first Century conscience on the Medieval world. I was wrong, you're not getting defensive of your religion, it's your conveniently re-constructed version of history you are defending. You're in good company, it was a favorite past time of the Bolsheviks.

There were numerous non-catholic groups that were heavily persecuted by the Roman Catholic church who did not support violence. As you say yourself, and truly i might add, "The majority of people weren't so much Christians as destitute peasants who worked the lands of nobility trying to cull the favor of the pope and other royalty." They were weak-minded, weak-willed people who had little choice over what they could or couldn't do. No one is revising history (outside of you when its convenient), no one is assigning 21st century anything; whether conscience or motives. You yourself in that same statement say that the motivation was political.

No one will argue that many well meaning, true christians got wrapped up in the hype and passion. They were used for their fervor.....again.....USED. There were also numerous people who saw the potential for a better life than peasantry, numerous criminals were given reprieve if they went and fought. Politicians, even then, knew how to manipulate people into accomplishing their goals. That does not excuse the actions of those who were manipulated, but it does help us understand that saying "christians have been murderers in the past, its just islams turn" like they're impudent teens, is also a grievous mistake. There were many christians who were "crusaded" against by the catholic church: eastern orthodox, huguenots, cathars (though this was a broad label that included numerous heretical sects as well).

I can see your a classy person who spends tons of time forming his "opinions" I won't bother you anymore with rational thought.

 

[antsi]

I see a lot of conflating going on in this thread.

Like, if you don't support burning Korans, then you must be a pacifist hippie who wants to make love with radical islamists.

These are not all the same things. Let's try to address separate questions separately.

I do agree that radical Islam is a mortal enemy to civilization. Not just Christian civilization, but also secular civilization. They're the mortal enemy of everything other than radical Islam.

I do agree we're at war with radical Islam. This is in some places a shooting war, and in other places a propaganda/culture war. We really need to win on both fronts.

However, none of that follows directly into "having a public event burning Korans is a smart and helpful move." First of all, I don't think it accomplishes anything useful. Second of all, it's a bad move in the propaganda/culture war.

One of the ways to win a propaganda/culture war is to make yourself morally distinct from the enemy. Obviously so, in both superficial and substantive ways. If you go out and do something that looks like a barbarian orgy of destruction, then you open the door for people to write it all off as "look, both sides of this conflict are barbarians."

Sure, the Islamists burn books, and a lot worse to boot. That doesn't mean we should.

Personally, I do not care to model my behavior on what the worst people in the world do.

 

[Zoub]

Muslims tossed most of my Grandfathers family off a church steeple when they refused to join. I have a natural distrust of Muslims. I had a great uncle survive a Nazi concentration camp. No, I am not Jewish.

I don't go around burning books of any religion and I believe free specch is pricless but I also don't go around making assinine posts like the OP did in here just to flame.

I think the Mosque in New York will be destroyed by locals. No, my family there won't do it, but others probably will.

Name 5 INGO members who have met the OP FTF. Member of MSG2 my butt. Think guys, who is the OP, anybody know?

 

[dross]

Think guys, who is the OP, anybody know?

No, but you've got my attention.

 

[techres]

Think guys, who is the OP, anybody know?

Google his usename. That should help you out.

 

[Zoub]

Google his usename. That should help you out.

I don't need to do that. I can be wrong, but until then all I need is my own powers of observation. I have made this point before, I am just pounding the drum a little louder this time.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

There were numerous non-catholic groups that were heavily persecuted by the Roman Catholic church who did not support violence. As you say yourself, and truly i might add, "The majority of people weren't so much Christians as destitute peasants who worked the lands of nobility trying to cull the favor of the pope and other royalty."
When I was in school, I was taught most peasants were serfs - slaves basically - tied to the land belonging to a Lord. They worked the land and lived on whatever their landlord (essentially) didn't tax away from them. When the King levied his armies, they were conscripted by their particular Lord and became his footsoldiers. They lived mainly short, miserable lives of heavy labor and borderline starvation and one of their few consolations was "The Church", wherein the Scriptures' lessons of poverty in this life and Glory in the next life helped to keep them in line. They were weak-minded, weak-willed people who had little choice over what they could or couldn't do. No one is revising history (outside of you when its convenient), no one is assigning 21st century anything; whether conscience or motives. You yourself in that same statement say that the motivation was political.

To say they were "weak-minded, weak willed" implies that they had some other alternative - besides banditry. Once again, as another poster said, you're judging people by 20th Century American standards rather than the standards of the rest of the world they lived in.

No one will argue that many well meaning, true christians got wrapped up in the hype and passion. They were used for their fervor.....again.....USED. There were also numerous people who saw the potential for a better life than peasantry, numerous criminals were given reprieve if they went and fought. Politicians, even then, knew how to manipulate people into accomplishing their goals. That does not excuse the actions of those who were manipulated, but it does help us understand that saying "christians have been murderers in the past, its just islams turn" like they're impudent teens, is also a grievous mistake. There were many christians who were "crusaded" against by the catholic church: eastern orthodox, huguenots, cathars (though this was a broad label that included numerous heretical sects as well).

While the effect of the Crusades may have been what you say, I think your assigning the motives you do to the Crusaders are, once again, based on your 20th Century perception of history. Certainly the standards of warfare were more cruel then; that's one of the reasons we have the Geneva Conventions and Laws of War today. While the Crusader armies didn't conform to our notions of propriety in warfare, they just about matched everyone else who was warring at the time. Did the soldiers murder, pillage, rape and plunder? You bet. Untrained soldiers will always do that when it's allowed - and it was allowed, even during the Civil War.

I can see your a classy person who spends tons of time forming his "opinions" I won't bother you anymore with rational thought.

"Pot meet Kettle"