qur'an burning in Florida

[andys]

Muffled,
Permit me to answer your questions in the order in which they were asked.

1) There is no such thing as evil. It is another nonsensical religious construct, like grace.

2) The most fundamental of all human rights is the right to live the way you wish providing your actions do not interfere with another person's rights. So there is nothing morally wrong with harming yourself or killing yourself (although I would argue that the suffering it may cause loved ones should be considered).

3) A law is arbitrary in the sense that it is a function of who is in a position to create it and have it enforced. So there is no theoretical limit to how far a law can be go against so called hate crimes.

4) There is nothing morally wrong about hate. Indeed it is quite justified in many cases (e.g., hating Nazis). I have the right to hate Islam, Muslims and their idiotic Koran, along with any other religion, and shout it from the rooftops.

5) One's right to freedom of speech is important and should be protected. Burning an object to express an idea is one's right. No punitive reprisal is justified.

I spoke of this issue a moment ago, saying this:

It does bother me that the Pastor in Florida is being targeted as the villain.

What he is doing is expressing his (justified) contempt for the Koran in accordance with his right to freedom of speech. This dangerous book deserves no respect; the people who follow it, even less.

Granted, his demonstration will infuriate the Muslim population. But he is not the idiot or the villain—THEY ARE.

More dangerous than his demonstration, which is his constitutional right, is cowering to the threat of reprisal. Then the Muslims have won. They will have succeeded in silencing the infidel.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I does bother me that the Pastor in Florida is being targeted as the villain.

What he is doing is expressing his (justified) contempt for the Koran in accordance with his right to freedom of speech. This dangerous book deserves no respect; the people who follow it, even less.

Granted, his demonstration will infuriate the Muslim population. But he is not the idiot or the villain—THEY ARE.

More dangerous than his demonstration, which is his constitutional right, is cowering to the threat of reprisal. Then the Muslims have won. They will have succeeded in silencing the infidel. We will have taken the first step to conforming to their will.

Gross generalization of Muslims such as "he is not the idiot or the villain—THEY ARE", misrepresents the majority of Muslims in the world.
Your "us vs. them mentality" shows a lack of understanding of the various sects and beliefs among Muslims. Which varies nearly as much as Christianity and Judaism.

Yes, this Pastor has the freedom of speech that enables him to express his ignorance and bigotry to the world. But that does not make him any less an idiot.

 

[andys]

Tumblewee41,

You characterize my (correct) generalization of Muslims as "Gross".

You assert that I have misrepresented the majority of Muslims in the world and that I lack understanding of the various sects and beliefs among Muslims.

Your naivete is not uncommon. Indeed, it is commonplace today, owing greatly to the advancement of the menacing notion of political correctness.

This topic is worthy of an entire thread or two, but let me offer a few glimpses into the truth of the matter.

Firstly a Muslim is, BY DEFINITION, an ardent adherent to Islam. Islam is solely based on a book, called the Koran. The Koran is fervently believed by ALL Muslims as the direct and absolute word of god. (In fact, it is nothing more than the recorded rantings of an Iron Age "prophet" claiming to be the privileged messenger of god's word.) In this sense, the Koran enjoys the same credibility as the Book of Mormon, since both authors, Muhammad and Joseph Smith, claimed to have a privileged hotline to the Almighty.

So what does this ill-inspired book reveal to its beguiled followers? I'm sure you are familiar with the standard examples:

1) MEN ARE SUPERIOR TO WOMEN.
4:34 "Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient."

2) MEN ARE COMMANDED TO BEAT THEIR DISOBEDIENT WOMEN
4:34 "As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to their beds apart (stop having sexual relations with them), and beat them." ["Beat" actually translates to "whip" or "scourge".]

4) MEN CAN HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH [4] WIVES AND ANY SLAVE GIRLS
23:5 "Blessed are the believers...who restrain their carnal desires except with their wives and slave girls for these are lawful to them..."

5) A WOMAN'S LEGAL TESTIMONY IS WORTH HALF OF A MAN'S
2:282 "...and call in to witness two witnesses, men; or if the two be not men, then one man and two women, such witness as you approve of, that if one women errs the other will remind her."

The list of commands within this monstrous book goes on and on, condemning every human right imaginable.

Such antiquated notions would be funny if they weren't considered by Muslims as absolute truths. Fortunately, in secular, democratic societies these disgraceful laws are suppressed. But within the privacy of the Muslim family the husband is the only authority.

Understand that this book of horrors is THE single authoritative source for ALL Muslims. This is not a "gross" generalization, it is an indisputable, empirical fact.

Ah, then we have the other Muslim book, the Hadith. Muslims consider this to be essential reading in order to fully appreciate the Koran. It is an account of the prophet's life and—in their eyes—his model behaviour. In fact, it is a testament to the ruthless, merciless nature of this bloodthirsty military leader.

Now I ask you—or anyone else—plainly:

Do you agree with the the Koran's disregard for human rights? Or do you reject these teachings?

Do you think anyone who adheres to the Koran's condemnation of human rights, deserve to be respected?

Be careful not to generalize!

 

[Islamic_point_of_view]

Muffled,
Permit me to answer your questions in the order in which they were asked.

2) The most fundamental of all human rights is the right to live the way you wish providing your actions do not interfere with another person's rights. So there is nothing morally wrong with harming yourself or killing yourself (although I would argue that the suffering it may cause loved ones should be considered). {AGREE}

4) There is nothing morally wrong about hate. Indeed it is quite justified in many cases (e.g., hating Nazis). I have the right to hate Islam, Muslims and their idiotic Koran, along with any other religion, and shout it from the rooftops.{AGREE}

5) One's right to freedom of speech is important and should be protected. Burning an object to express an idea is one's right. No punitive reprisal is justified.{DISAGREE}

I spoke of this issue a moment ago, saying this:

It does bother me that the Pastor in Florida is being targeted as the villain.

What he is doing is expressing his (justified) contempt for the Koran in accordance with his right to freedom of speech. This dangerous book deserves no respect; the people who follow it, even less.{DISAGREE}

Granted, his demonstration will infuriate the Muslim population. But he is not the idiot or the villain—THEY ARE. {DISAGREE- see below}

More dangerous than his demonstration, which is his constitutional right, is cowering to the threat of reprisal. Then the Muslims have won. They will have succeeded in silencing the infidel {DISAGREE}.

There should be a law against any activity that targets a group of people based on their Race, Gender, Color, language, National Origin, religion, belief system.

All activities that can be considered desecration of following items should carry a punishment.
1. God/gods of the religions.
2. Prophet/Saints/ messengers of the religions.
3. Books/Narrations/explanations of the religions.
4. Places of worships/congregation of the religions.
5. Holidays/religious observation and celebration days.
6. Flags/ National Anthem of countries.
7. Pictures/Idols objects of religious significance.

Freedom of Speech and freedom of expression does not/should not give any one a right to hurt others based on Race, Gender, Color, language, National Origin, religion, belief system.
If you don’t like someone else’s religion/belief system then don’t believe in it, you can object and point out what you don’t like about it objectively.
Any person commits a crime needs to pay the punishment for his crimes. You cannot ask or seek the punishment from another person of that group based on Race, Gender, Color, language, National Origin, religion, belief system.
If anyone wants to perform or engage in any activity that crosses the line of indecency, moral and ethical boundaries can do so in the privacy of their own home or in the congregation of the like minded people is secluded settings provided such activities and behaviors could not and should not leak to others groups of people meaning it should not and cannot be recorded or documented and passed along to be consumed openly.

 

[Wandered Off]

Freedom of Speech and freedom of expression does not/should not give any one a right to hurt others based on Race, Gender, Color, language, National Origin, religion, belief system.

I can't agree with this at all. Nowhere is there a right "not to be offended." If freedom to offend is stifled, there is far too much latitude for oppression. What if I claim to be offended at the mention of your name? Who cares why? Since it hurts me, you are not allowed to say your name ever again. Part of the price we pay for freedom of speech is that our feelings may get hurt.

 

[Meow Mix]

There should be a law against any activity that targets a group of people based on their Race, Gender, Color, language, National Origin, religion, belief system.

All activities that can be considered desecration of following items should carry a punishment.
1. God/gods of the religions.
2. Prophet/Saints/ messengers of the religions.
3. Books/Narrations/explanations of the religions.
4. Places of worships/congregation of the religions.
5. Holidays/religious observation and celebration days.
6. Flags/ National Anthem of countries.
7. Pictures/Idols objects of religious significance.

Freedom of Speech and freedom of expression does not/should not give any one a right to hurt others based on Race, Gender, Color, language, National Origin, religion, belief system.
If you don’t like someone else’s religion/belief system then don’t believe in it, you can object and point out what you don’t like about it objectively.
Any person commits a crime needs to pay the punishment for his crimes. You cannot ask or seek the punishment from another person of that group based on Race, Gender, Color, language, National Origin, religion, belief system.
If anyone wants to perform or engage in any activity that crosses the line of indecency, moral and ethical boundaries can do so in the privacy of their own home or in the congregation of the like minded people is secluded settings provided such activities and behaviors could not and should not leak to others groups of people meaning it should not and cannot be recorded or documented and passed along to be consumed openly.

So if there were a law against infringing things people believe, would I not be able to eat a cheeseburger because Hindus hold some cows sacred?

To what extent would I be able to challenge various religions in the interest of discussion rather than to offend -- if someone gets offended over merely asking tough questions have I then broken the law?

I think the minute you start placing limits on people's freedoms you're opening the door for a dark, slippery slope into oppression. It's better that people can be free to do stupid things as long as they don't infringe other people's rights.

For instance with the book burning thing -- Muslims can choose to ignore it. They can choose not to give the guy the time of day. Instead, some choose to give him power by becoming outraged -- falling right into his trap.

I'd rather be free to do something stupid than be at the mercy of any government telling me more ways in which I'm not free.

 

[Looncall]

There should be a law against any activity that targets a group of people based on their Race, Gender, Color, language, National Origin, religion, belief system.

All activities that can be considered desecration of following items should carry a punishment.
1. God/gods of the religions.
2. Prophet/Saints/ messengers of the religions.
3. Books/Narrations/explanations of the religions.
4. Places of worships/congregation of the religions.
5. Holidays/religious observation and celebration days.
6. Flags/ National Anthem of countries.
7. Pictures/Idols objects of religious significance.

Freedom of Speech and freedom of expression does not/should not give any one a right to hurt others based on Race, Gender, Color, language, National Origin, religion, belief system.
If you don’t like someone else’s religion/belief system then don’t believe in it, you can object and point out what you don’t like about it objectively.
Any person commits a crime needs to pay the punishment for his crimes. You cannot ask or seek the punishment from another person of that group based on Race, Gender, Color, language, National Origin, religion, belief system.
If anyone wants to perform or engage in any activity that crosses the line of indecency, moral and ethical boundaries can do so in the privacy of their own home or in the congregation of the like minded people is secluded settings provided such activities and behaviors could not and should not leak to others groups of people meaning it should not and cannot be recorded or documented and passed along to be consumed openly.

Muslims need to get used to the idea that most of the world's population considers their religion to be a pack of lies and that muslim taboos apply only to muslims.

Non-muslims can burn korans and insult mohammed as much as they like. No muslim taboos against these acts apply to non-muslims.

If muslims don't like it, tough. It's time they grew up.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Tumblewee41,

You characterize my (correct) generalization of Muslims as "Gross".

To lump all Muslims together is a gross generalization.

You assert that I have misrepresented the majority of Muslims in the world and that I lack understanding of the various sects and beliefs among Muslims.

Since varying sects and beliefs of Islam exist, I would say lumping them all into one group as "idiots" or "villains" shows a lack of understanding.

Your naivete is not uncommon. Indeed, it is commonplace today, owing greatly to the advancement of the menacing notion of political correctness.

I do not care for political correctness. I do care about being informed on a subject before I make a comment.

This topic is worthy of an entire thread or two, but let me offer a few glimpses into the truth of the matter.

Please do...

Firstly a Muslim is, BY DEFINITION, an ardent adherent to Islam. Islam is solely based on a book, called the Koran. The Koran is fervently believed by ALL Muslims as the direct and absolute word of god. (In fact, it is nothing more than the recorded rantings of an Iron Age "prophet" claiming to be the privileged messenger of god's word.) In this sense, the Koran enjoys the same credibility as the Book of Mormon, since both authors, Muhammad and Joseph Smith, claimed to have a privileged hotline to the Almighty.

First, not all Muslims "fervently" believe the Qu'ran, some see it as a guide, some as just a history of the Prophet. It is interpreted in differing ways by differing schools of Islam.
What do you know of Sufism? Ahmadiyya? Salafi? Mahdavism? Suhrawardiyya?

So what does this ill-inspired book reveal to its beguiled followers? I'm sure you are familiar with the standard examples:

1) MEN ARE SUPERIOR TO WOMEN.
4:34 "Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient."

2) MEN ARE COMMANDED TO BEAT THEIR DISOBEDIENT WOMEN
4:34 "As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to their beds apart (stop having sexual relations with them), and beat them." ["Beat" actually translates to "whip" or "scourge".]

4) MEN CAN HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH [4] WIVES AND ANY SLAVE GIRLS
23:5 "Blessed are the believers...who restrain their carnal desires except with their wives and slave girls for these are lawful to them..."

5) A WOMAN'S LEGAL TESTIMONY IS WORTH HALF OF A MAN'S
2:282 "...and call in to witness two witnesses, men; or if the two be not men, then one man and two women, such witness as you approve of, that if one women errs the other will remind her."

The list of commands within this monstrous book goes on and on, condemning every human right imaginable.

One can pick through the Bible and condemn Jews and Christians in the same manner. But your or my interpretations of their holy books does not define the believer.

Such antiquated notions would be funny if they weren't considered by Muslims as absolute truths. Fortunately, in secular, democratic societies these disgraceful laws are suppressed. But within the privacy of the Muslim family the husband is the only authority.

Again, gross generalization. Differing schools apply differing interpretations and importance.

Understand that this book of horrors is THE single authoritative source for ALL Muslims. This is not a "gross" generalization, it is an indisputable, empirical fact.

Wrong. You ignore all the Sects and schools of Islam, and their wide and varying beliefs.

Ah, then we have the other Muslim book, the Hadith. Muslims consider this to be essential reading in order to fully appreciate the Koran. It is an account of the prophet's life and—in their eyes—his model behaviour. In fact, it is a testament to the ruthless, merciless nature of this bloodthirsty military leader.

Did you know differing sects and schools of belief in Islam have differing authoritative hadiths? Or that many Muslims Judge every hadith on their own as compared to their understanding of th Qur'an? (We have a couple of them here on RF)

Now I ask you—or anyone else—plainly:

Do you agree with the the Koran's disregard for human rights? Or do you reject these teachings?

I do not agree with Biblical teachings on human rights. But I do not generalize all Christians as slave trading, wife and children beating, animal sacrificing, witch burning idiots either.

Do you think anyone who adheres to the Koran's condemnation of human rights, deserve to be respected?

Do you know for a fact that ALL Muslims support and follow what you have claimed?

Be careful not to generalize!

Indeed.

 

[waitasec]

Uhh, no - because that's not what I am doing. In all my various posts on this topic, on this thread and others, I clearly differentiate between moderate Muslims and radical Islamic extremists.

You, however, are the one insisting on broad generalizations, and demonizing the whole based on aberrations.

Even this horrid, stupid, ignorant pastor down in Florida -as bad as he is - is only threatening harm to BOOKS. You don't hear of radical Christians WORLDWIDE threatening (and actually carrying out) large scale terrorist operations in the name of their religion. Of course there are kooks out there, but they are not well organized. Radical Islam has an infrastructure, funding sources, and support worldwide - and their influence is growing.

Of COURSE I do not lump moderate Muslims (and I believe the vast majority of Muslims fall into this category) into the same category as these insane radicals. You, however, clearly state that you purposely lump all types of Christians in the same box.

You, my friend, are the bigot - not me.

funny how this is the first time you mentioned that idiot in florida...
keep pointing fingers, doesn't change the fact that ALL religions are dangerous...
there is islamaphobia in this country but
i guess you would rather be a part of the problem and not the solution, huh?

 

[Islamic_point_of_view]

So if there were a law against infringing things people believe, would I not be able to eat a cheeseburger because Hindus hold some cows sacred?

To what extent would I be able to challenge various religions in the interest of discussion rather than to offend -- if someone gets offended over merely asking tough questions have I then broken the law?

---
This requires some common sense – the Book(Quran) , the prophets Jesus, Mohd, Mosses belongs to their particular religions. In other words you can say they own them. Like Statues of Buddha or Krishna is owned by Buddhists or Hindus…

The COW(as an animal category) is not owned by Any group of people- A Particular, specific, individual animal can be owned by anyone and no other person should have the right to harm someone else’s property.

Just like that you burn ,eat, play with any book but not bible, geeta, torah or Quran.


I think the minute you start placing limits on people's freedoms you're opening the door for a dark, slippery slope into oppression. It's better that people can be free to do stupid things as long as they don't infringe other people's rights.


-- there are already a thousands of limits , there is no such thing called perfect freedom if there was something like that existed I would have wanted to practice that freedom by wanting to be free to chose my existence in the universe.

For instance with the book burning thing -- Muslims can choose to ignore it. They can choose not to give the guy the time of day. Instead, some choose to give him power by becoming outraged -- falling right into his trap.



--Agree to certain extent – better yet break of any diplomatic ties to the countries/or group of people who do not have the decency to respect what you hold more dear to you than your own life.



I'd rather be free to do something stupid than be at the mercy of any government telling me more ways in which I'm not free

. {Agree and you still have that right}
.

plese see inline ----

 

[Islamic_point_of_view]

Muslims need to get used to the idea that most of the world's population considers their religion to be a pack of lies and that muslim taboos apply only to muslims.

Non-muslims can burn korans and insult mohammed as much as they like. No muslim taboos against these acts apply to non-muslims.

If muslims don't like it, tough. It's time they grew up.

{cammon man please wake up }

this is your answer -- "If muslims don't like it, tough."
if you are civilized as you claim to be .... you can do better than that

 

[Islamic_point_of_view]

I can't agree with this at all. Nowhere is there a right "not to be offended." If freedom to offend is stifled, there is far too much latitude for oppression. What if I claim to be offended at the mention of your name? Who cares why? Since it hurts me, you are not allowed to say your name ever again. Part of the price we pay for freedom of speech is that our feelings may get hurt.

please do a google on
"Laws against Holocaust denial > Penalties for violation > Minimum (most recent) by country "

 

[Wandered Off]

please do a google on
"Laws against Holocaust denial > Penalties for violation > Minimum (most recent) by country "

My perspective springs from US laws, notably absent from the list.

 

[AxisMundi]

I does bother me that the Pastor in Florida is being targeted as the villain.

What he is doing is expressing his (justified) contempt for the Koran in accordance with his right to freedom of speech. This dangerous book deserves no respect; the people who follow it, even less.

Granted, his demonstration will infuriate the Muslim population. But he is not the idiot or the villain—THEY ARE.

More dangerous than his demonstration, which is his constitutional right, is cowering to the threat of reprisal. Then the Muslims have won. They will have succeeded in silencing the infidel. We will have taken the first step to conforming to their will.

There is something else Islamic terrorists count on as well.

The unreasoning hatred dripping from your post.

It validates their agenda.

I refuse to fear terrorists, Christian or Muslim, but I also refuse to hate an entire people because of the actions of a few.

 

[Meow Mix]

My perspective springs from US laws, notably absent from the list.

Yeah, I agree -- there should be no law against holocaust denial. That is just absolutely ridiculous. I can't believe that exists anywhere.

Holocaust denial is silly, asinine, often hateful; but who has the right to control thought? Governments certainly shouldn't.

There should never be a "right not to be offended." People CHOOSE to be offended. It's their own fault if they are. I'd rather someone have the right to [try to] offend me than have a big list of rights that I don't have anymore.

 

[Meow Mix]

plese see inline
This requires some common sense – the Book(Quran) , the prophets Jesus, Mohd, Mosses belongs to their particular religions. In other words you can say they own them. Like Statues of Buddha or Krishna is owned by Buddhists or Hindus…

That's not true. If I buy a Quran, a Bible, or a statue of a Buddha then I own that object. I can burn it, flush it down a toilet, toss it in the garbage, use it as a doorstop or anything I very well please to do with it.

Imagine if you purchased a copy of Microsoft Windows Vista and you thought to yourself, gosh this thing is garbage. I'm going to throw it in the trash. Then the thought police show up and arrest you because you've desecrated Microsoft's actual intellectual property. That's ridiculous.

It should be perfectly legal to burn or deface any of your own property. That doesn't make it right, or something that should be done. But it would most definitely be wrong to take away rights of expression under any circumstances.

The COW(as an animal category) is not owned by Any group of people- A Particular, specific, individual animal can be owned by anyone and no other person should have the right to harm someone else’s property.

Ok, in what way is it different to own a particular, specific, individual copy of a holy book and doing with it what you will?

Just like that you burn ,eat, play with any book but not bible, geeta, torah or Quran.

Why not? What if someone wanted to throw the collected works of J.R.R. Tolkien in the trash and that offended me -- would they not be able to, then?

There is not -- and shouldn't be -- a "right not to be offended." We choose whether to be offended or not; we can't make our choices infringe the rights of others.

-- there are already a thousands of limits , there is no such thing called perfect freedom if there was something like that existed I would have wanted to practice that freedom by wanting to be free to chose my existence in the universe.

There are only limitations as to where your rights end and another person's rights begin. There is no "right not to be offended," nor should there be.

--Agree to certain extent – better yet break of any diplomatic ties to the countries/or group of people who do not have the decency to respect what you hold more dear to you than your own life.

I would rather live in a free country than one that arbitrarily strips away rights. The way to combat intolerance and hatred isn't with injustice and the power of law; it's through counter-protest and ignoring. It's never okay to strip away someone's rights to express their opinion.

Imagine for instance that in the year 2050 people say that some town gathered up all its redhead citizens and burned them. Now imagine that it was just a rumor and wasn't true. However, they passed a law (so as not to offend red-head people) that denying the event is punishable by a fine. That would be quite ridiculous!

. {Agree and you still have that right}

But you're arguing for taking those rights away. How is it that you agree we should be free to express ourselves if you're simultaneously arguing to strip away our right to say or do anything that might be perceived by someone as "offensive?"

 

[Looncall]

{cammon man please wake up }

this is your answer -- "If muslims don't like it, tough."
if you are civilized as you claim to be .... you can do better than that

The problem is that many muslims are insufficiently civilized to realize that thay have no right to impose their religion on others. That is what insisting on imposing muslim taboos on non-muslims amounts to. If muslims are to live peaceably with others, they need to abate their arrogance.

If muslims could somehow demonstrate the truth of their religion, they might be able to make some kind of appeal for respect, but that is not the case for any religion.

 

[Kathryn]

funny how this is the first time you mentioned that idiot in florida...
keep pointing fingers, doesn't change the fact that ALL religions are dangerous...
there is islamaphobia in this country but
i guess you would rather be a part of the problem and not the solution, huh?

This is certainly an ironic and inaccurate statement. Who again is the Islamaphobe?

By your own repeated admission, YOU are the one with a phobia against all religions - not just Islam.

I however, do not have any sort of phobia about religion in general, or Islam in particular. The only issue I have is with religious extremists who threaten the lives of others.

Seems the more reasonable approach.

 

[waitasec]

This is certainly an ironic and inaccurate statement. Who again is the Islamaphobe?

By your own repeated admission, YOU are the one with a phobia against all religions - not just Islam.

I however, do not have any sort of phobia about religion in general, or Islam in particular. The only issue I have is with religious extremists who threaten the lives of others.

Seems the more reasonable approach.

sure go ahead and defend an ideology that say's
god is on MY side....

 

[Kathryn]

sure go ahead and defend an ideology that say's
god is on MY side....

:angel2: