Quran burning: How media and world leaders are the ones pouring gas on the flames?

[Prometheus The Supremo]

so some christian pastor of a church of about 50 is holding a quran burning event on the 9/11 anniversary. it's causing quite some controversy.

as much as this is not something i agree with personally, not something that i would do or endorse, what i do agree with is that this person has the right to do this, taking into consideration any fire code laws. freedom of speech and expression means tolerating things we don't agree with, this is one of the foundations of freedom. sometimes you have to accept some things you don't like or disagree with for the greater good. if we were to ban everything someone finds offensive, we would be in a pretty restrictive society.


also, some of the justifications against this action by world leaders is that this event will encourage terrorists to attack. i think this bad reasoning since the same leaders have told us that our freedoms provoke terrorists to attack as well. should we restrict our freedoms as well in an effort to appease terrorists? what about how our political policies and how they could provoke terrorists to attack? are the leaders of this world willing to shape their political policies in ways not to offend terrorists? don't the wars in afghanistan and iraq offend terrorists?

do we have the right not to be offended? i don't think so. i think the biggest tragedy of this all is that the media is portraying the "muslim world" as one that is ready to explode with revenge for this action. what the media doesn't realize is that they are further fuelling muslim phobia here in the west. the impression they are painting of muslims is that they are ready to kill you if you insult their religion. i find this portrayal of muslims by the media way more concerning than some stupid backwater hick pastor who is going to have a quran BBQ. i for one believe the the average muslim will understand that this is the action of a pastor and congregation of 50 and does not represent the actions of all non muslims, americans in general, etc. just like the average american understands that not every single muslim is going to fly a plane into your house.

if you read between the lines, the media is telling you that you shouldn't offend muslims or they will kill you. they are telling us in a sort of passive aggressive way that muslims can't handle criticism and resort to violence. and i'm ashamed to say that this is coming from the left of centre & centre media as well. i hope they realize what they are doing and the unintended consequences it is having. don't get me wrong, i'm also for freedom of the press, but just like how people don't have the right to not have their religious views offended, the media doesn't have the right not to be criticized for what and how they report.

[cacruden]

I don't think many people agree with the "church" (actually more of a cult if you read some of their guidelines - like limiting/breaking contact with family members, etc.) -- left or right. The media is not a major factor - just the existence of said video through you-tube would provide gas to anyone that is "radicalized" - these organizations already distribute indoctrinization videos - this is just another video that can be used.

[Second_in_pie]

Well obviously nobody has the right to not be criticized. And people should be using that right to the greatest of their advantage. You disagree with this? Go and tell everyone you know that it's a terrible thing to do, do anti-burning demonstrations, write the church/pastor with your own belief that this is a stupid idea. We shouldn't be using laws to limit stupid actions like this, we should be using social stigmatization. There should be limits to freedom of expression and speech, similarly to how there are in Canada, but the public should be the main aggressors here.
EDIT: Example: Organizations like the WBC just shouldn't be allowed to express their views so publicly. Now, some of their defence against more widespread social stigmatization may be their rampant lawsuits against anyone that looks at them funny, but they just shouldn't be allowed to function as a public organization that holds large events.
I also agree with your point about the media painting it as though widespread muslim retaliation is imminent. They don't actually use those words, but they sure imply it. And while there probably will be lots of muslims angry about this (what if there was a publicized bible burning and you knew about it?) I'm guessing that there'll be plenty of non-muslim retaliation as well, as there already has been.

[Prometheus The Supremo]

the right to be hypocritical:

i wonder if those against the building of the "ground zero mosque" because it offends them think it's okay for this guy to burn qurans? probably!

they're probably like "no mosques near ground zero because it offends me!" and at the same time "one of the great things about this nation is freedom of speech and expression"

but maybe there will be a compromise, maybe they'll call for a multi faith centre and multi faith book burnings!

[Prometheus The Supremo]

i did a google image search on the pastor terry jones and found an image of him playing the organ in the nude for his congregation:



apparently he is also part of some cult called monty python's flying circus

p.s, thank goodness for larry flynt and the right to satirize!

[Second_in_pie]

the right to be hypocritical:

i wonder if those against the building of the "ground zero mosque" because it offends them think it's okay for this guy to burn qurans? probably!

they're probably like "no mosques near ground zero because it offends me!" and at the same time "one of the great things about this nation is freedom of speech and expression"

but maybe there will be a compromise, maybe they'll call for a multi faith centre and multi faith book burnings!

It's one's interpretation. I don't see how building a mosque (the accurate term which would be more renovating a mosque) near ground zero for the purpose of giving muslims in the area a place to pray, is anywhere near as offensive as an act that's made to be a cock-slap to the religion that's held by over 1.5 billion people, as well as the burning of an intelligent soul. This is purely a hate act, there's absolutely no way around it. How is building a place for community to congregate a hate act?

Also, the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression need limits. No way around it, words have the potential to do far more harm and damage than a punch in the face can do, and that's punishable by law. If it's illegal to shout fire in a movie theatre or hijack on a plane, how far are those placed from attempting to degrade someone, or attempting to incite hate and violence against a group of people, making them fearful? Or slandering someone's name and destroying their reputation? Remember that guy named Hitler? The holocaust wasn't led up to by a bloody uprising, it was from a guy spewing a slew of extreme hate against a group of people. And how about countless schoolchildren who have to put up with extreme bullying, sometimes causing permanent psychological damage and causing many to go so far as to kill themselves? And if someone is able to twist your knobs in an aggressive and unfriendly way, do you not think that you should have the right to at least call them out for it?

[gei]

am I the only one who get a chuckle out of all this? good old USA... throw some crazy christians together with some crazy muslims and sit back with the popcorn.

[Prometheus The Supremo]

It's one's interpretation. I don't see how building a mosque (the accurate term which would be more renovating a mosque) near ground zero for the purpose of giving muslims in the area a place to pray, is anywhere near as offensive as an act that's made to be a cock-slap to the religion that's held by over 1.5 billion people, as well as the burning of an intelligent soul. This is purely a hate act, there's absolutely no way around it. How is building a place for community to congregate a hate act?

Also, the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression need limits. No way around it, words have the potential to do far more harm and damage than a punch in the face can do, and that's punishable by law. If it's illegal to shout fire in a movie theatre or hijack on a plane, how far are those placed from attempting to degrade someone, or attempting to incite hate and violence against a group of people, making them fearful? Or slandering someone's name and destroying their reputation? Remember that guy named Hitler? The holocaust wasn't led up to by a bloody uprising, it was from a guy spewing a slew of extreme hate against a group of people. And how about countless students who have to put up with extreme bullying, sometimes causing permanent psychological damage and causing many to go so far as to kill themselves? And if someone is able to twist your knobs in an aggressive and unfriendly way, do you not think that you should have the right to at least call them out for it?

SIP, i'm not equating mosque building and book burning as equals. i know that one is constructive and the other is an attempt to cause hostility. the only reason i mentioned them together is because they are both things that some people happen to find offensive and wish to be stopped.

the right to freedom of speech and expression does have limits in certain circumstances but we need to be very careful with regards to prohibiting by law the offending of religious beliefs. we have the absolute right to call out what we don't agree with. also, with regards to bullying, there's a difference between tormenting a belief vs. an individual. and whether a book is held sacred by billions or just tens of people is irrelevant to the matter. affording special "offence free" rights to groups just because they happen to be larger than others is not fair and not necessary.

keep in mind as well, religious texts are filled with things that people deem offensive. the same reasons you would use for restricting freedom of speech and expression with regards to not insulting religious beliefs would be the same reasons to make those books illegal in the first place. you can't have one without the other.

diplomacy is not farting in the elevator but tolerance is farting and allowing others to fart as well. i'd hate to live in a society were everyone had to have a cork in their ass at all times.

[Prometheus The Supremo]

so pastor terry jones has called off the quran burning but the damage is done already. i think his ultimate goal was to have the media portray muslims as people who are unable to tolerate criticism and who resort to violence when offended in such a way. there is no doubt that muslim phobia has increased due to this event. now he's left looking like the good guy because he won't go ahead with it and changed his mind. it's a sneaky passive aggressive tactic.

i bet this is exactly what he wanted and everyone played into is plan.

[Second_in_pie]

SIP, i'm not equating mosque building and book burning as equals. i know that one is constructive and the other is an attempt to cause hostility. the only reason i mentioned them together is because they are both things that some people happen to find offensive and wish to be stopped.

You didn't say they're not equals. But you did seem to note that you think it's hypocritical for someone to be against Qur'an burning and inciting hate while being for mosque building. Not to mention that I'm quite against book burning in general.

I was noting that a pointless act of hate has no place in this world. But building the mosque in Lower Manhattan is neither pointless nor an act of hate. The renovation is happening because muslims in New York need a new mosque to worship in, and is in no way a rubbing of "islamic victory" in the face of America. Sure it might offend people, but a solution needs to be realized while offences get boiled down on both sides. There's no contradiction in logic there.

[Prometheus The Supremo]

You didn't say they're not equals. But you did seem to note that you think it's hypocritical for someone to be against Qur'an burning and inciting hate while being for mosque building. Not to mention that I'm quite against book burning in general.

actually, didn't i say it the other way around? that some people have no problem with burning the quran but feel that the building of the mosque should be prohibited because it is offensive to them?

here's my quote:

i wonder if those against the building of the "ground zero mosque" because it offends them think it's okay for this guy to burn qurans? probably!

they're probably like "no mosques near ground zero because it offends me!" and at the same time "one of the great things about this nation is freedom of speech and expression"

but maybe there will be a compromise, maybe they'll call for a multi faith centre and multi faith book burnings!

the compromise part is regarding some idiot i saw on CNN who said that a christian church should be built on the highest floor of the proposed islamic centre. the mosque builders don't need to cave into such demands. they should be held to the same rules, regulations & guidelines as everyone else and not be singled out for "special" treatment.

[Prometheus The Supremo]

different train of thought here, do you think the media is playing a balancing act between the two subjects? offsetting estimated christian reaction to the mosque with estimated muslim reaction to the quran burnings?

[Second_in_pie]

Ah I see. I interpreted that wrong. In that case, it's quite hypocritical. But you still need to note that rights shouldn't be extended indefinitely; one's guaranteed right to build a mosque may be a good counter to people saying "oh you should stop them from building the mosque," but it still skirts around the central issue. And also, that way, it just keeps telling people that they can do whatever they want, such as burning a holy book. It's not a way that we should be dealing with society. We should be saying that yes, there certainly should be a point that you say no, but then explain why the mosque isn't anywhere near that point. Kill 2 birds with one stone, while preventing any more birds from entering the area, if you'll excuse the metaphor.

As for the second, I think it's actually weighted very heavily against non-muslims. I haven't heard of any news organizations (other than Fox News of course,) speak out against the mosque. And many don't even say that they just have the right to do so, but defend the mosque's right to exist by totally countering points against it. I also have found that many news organizations aren't speaking as much of muslim backlash against the Qur'an burning, but instead talk about the burning as a concept, how this church is wrong in principle to burn the book. I find this a good step forward in the media, which hopefully will have positive implications on issues in the future.

[urbandreamer]

No need to burn it...just reading it is hilarious enough.

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Pastor will 'not today, not ever' burn Qur’an

Sat Sep 11, 10:26 AM

By The Associated Press


NEW YORK, N.Y. - A Florida pastor says his church will "not today, not ever" burn a Qur’an, even if a mosque is built near ground zero.

Pastor Terry Jones had threatened to burn the Muslim holy book on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks over plans to build an Islamic centre near where terrorists brought down the World Trade Center nine years ago.

He flew to New York and appeared on NBC's "Today" show. He says that his Gainesville, Fla., church's goal was "to expose that there is an element of Islam that is very dangerous and very radical."

He tells NBC that "we have definitely accomplished that mission." He says no meeting is planned with the imam leading the centre but he hopes one will take place.

A "Burn a Qur’an Day" banner outside his church has been taken down.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/1.../quran_burning

a mission accomplished but unfortunately at the expense of adding more muslim-phobes to the population. by the same token, anti-americanism has increased in the world due to this act regardless that this what not the fault of the american government. the US government even went out on a olive branch and denounced the action which is something they would have never done for 200 copies of the origin of species. there is definitely an element of islam that is dangerous, just like anything else but that is to be expected. what i find idiotic is the calls to have burning the quran designated a hate crime by some or that it is a racist act.

tell me this, if i have a copy of the quran on my computer and delete it, should this be considered a hate crime? or a racist act? i would not burn a quran but i'd like to keep the right to do so. imo, if you prohibit one written work from being destroyed, you must prohibit all written works from being destroyed.