Florida Church to burn the Koran in memory of 9-11

[Fnord]

Originally Posted by Virus

I don't agree with burning any book. But if it's their Koran they can do whatever they want with it. They can buy a box of Korans and keep them in the toilet as bog roll if they want.

My Koran is printed on cheap paper with little absorbency. That's why it's going in the firepit instead.

[Graham2001]

Quote:

Red-nosed pastor Terry Jones, who plans to burn copies of the Koran and Jewish text the Talmud at the weekend,

(emphasis mine)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09...eworld_hacked/

I wonder how many Jews are going to threaten to kill Americans/Burn the US flag over this...

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by Darat

How do you work that out?

To answer the question-The Imam said so.

Quote:

The religious leader behind plans to build an Islamic center and mosque a few blocks from New York's ground zero said Wednesday night that America's national security depends on how it handles the controversy."If we move from that location, the story will be the radicals have taken over the discourse," Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf told CNN's Soledad O'Brien on "Larry King Live."

regarding the mosque
and

Quote:

Rauf said he hopes the church reconsiders. "It is something that is not the right thing to do."
"With freedom comes responsibility," he said. "This is dangerous to our national security and is also the un-Christian thing to do. ... Jesus said to love your enemy. We are not your enemy."

If we oppose things based on our religion, we are bigots. If they oppose something based on their religion, we are bigots.

Blaming the Christians for opposing the mosque and burning books is OK, blaming Muslims for 9/11 is NOT Ok.
Very comnsistent

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

Which amendment would this be a breach of?

I never said that closing the church is the breach of amendment, i only followed the logic of "blaming the action of a few to a whole group" to its end : if you blame 9/11the whole islam, then you have to blame all single christian terrorism and bad action of priest hierarchy on the whole christianity, and close their cult place, and forbid new one to be built, near the place of those acts.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Virus

I don't agree with burning any book. But if it's their Koran they can do whatever they want with it. They can buy a box of Korans and keep them in the toilet as bog roll if they want.

Indeed they can. And we can call them bigot for it, it is our right (well at least the one of those living in the US).

[Darat]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

To answer the question-The Imam said so.
regarding the mosque
and

If we oppose things based on our religion, we are bigots. If they oppose something based on their religion, we are bigots.

Blaming the Christians for opposing the mosque and burning books is OK, blaming Muslims for 9/11 is NOT Ok.
Very comnsistent

But he said nothing like what you said (at least not in the parts you have reproduced above).

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Graham2001

(emphasis mine)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09...eworld_hacked/

I wonder how many Jews are going to threaten to kill Americans/Burn the US flag over this...

Oh, don't worry there will certainly be a *FEW* idiot Jewish fundamentalist which will call for it, if this torah burning is sufficiently televised (up to now it was certainly not as only koran burning was announced). The difference will be they will not be on TV , and nobody will film them with a low height camera to give the impression of a big crowd. That will be the key difference.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

To answer the question-The Imam said so.
regarding the mosque
and

If we oppose things based on our religion, we are bigots. If they oppose something based on their religion, we are bigots.

Blaming the Christians for opposing the mosque and burning books is OK, blaming Muslims for 9/11 is NOT Ok.
Very comnsistent

Nowhere in what you qutoed he did blame the "christians" as a group. he said that the book burnign is an unchristian things to do. Waaay different.

ETA: it is like saying torturing people is an inhuman things. That does not mean you blame all humanity for it.

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

Blaming the Christians for opposing the mosque and burning books is OK, blaming Muslims for 9/11 is NOT Ok.
Very comnsistent

You seem to be forgetting one big difference here: Rauf is not blaming the Qu'ran burning on "Christians" as a whole, or blaming some completely random group of Christians completely unassociated with the Qu'ran burning, but blaming the people actually burning Qu'rans (in fact, by calling it "un-Christian", he's explicitly separating the Qu'ran burning thing from Christianity as a whole). Blaming all Muslims for 9/11, or blaming Rauf and the Park51 people for 9/11, in stark contrast, is blaming people who had nothing to do with 9/11 whatsoever and in fact opposed and condemned it.

That's why one is bigotry, and the other isn't.

[bluskool]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

You seem to share in bluskool's confusion. I wasn't making a comparison between Muslims and black people; I was making a comparison between two forms of bigotry.

Holding all Muslims responsible for the actions of a few is the same as holding all black people responsible for the actions of a few. In both cases, you are demonstrating a prejudice.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

So 1.5 billion people are held responsible for the actions of 19 by the mere fact that they are all Muslim?

How far do we take this logic?

All the 9/11 hijackers we're male. Should we not allow men near Ground Zero for fear of being insensitive? All the 9/11 hijackers were human. Should people not be allowed near Ground Zero? Perhaps everything within a 2 block radius should be turned into an animal preserve.

Okay, I'll try one more time and then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. There is nothing inherent about being a male that would motivate terrorism. Being male is not an ideology. Being black is not an ideology. Islam is an ideology. Islam is a worldview that it's adherents subscribe to, not a fact of their biology.
Let me give you what I think is a more appropriate comparison. Let's say there is a homeopath with an office in your town and one of his patients dies of an otherwise preventable disease while the homeopath was "treating" him. Let's say the patient protested and wanted to seek proper medical care, but the homeopath insisted that he stay and that his "treatment" would work. The homeopath then moves out of town and another, unrelated group of homeopaths, who actually condemn the actions of the first homeopath, want to build a homeopathic hospital next to his office. This causes a group of protestors to go down to the site and protest homeopathy for being useless and, in some cases, harmful. They say that the building of the hospital is insensitive because it is right next to a place where another homeopath was responsible for a death.
Now, the protestors might be a little overzealous and even misguided, but would you say they are bigots?

Originally Posted by Aepervius

The reason your position don't hold very well, is that those "christian belief" var extremly among the various sect which compose christianity.

You can't really compare mormonism, baptist, catholic, protestant, orthodox church and people holding those belief.
Sometimes it feel they are fully *DIFFERENT* religions.
Same for Islam really.

What you are doing is that you are holding a WHOLE set of religion responsible for the INTERPRETATION of some holy text by some.

This is fallacious reasoning. Just because there are different sects of Christianity, that doesn't mean that there is nothing they have in common like a belief that the bible is the word of God. I can criticize the bible for its barbarism and sanctioning of murder as punishment for innocuous actions, even though there are Christians who reinterpret or condemn that part of the bible. It's great that there are moderate Christians, but no amount interpretation will change the fact that certain passages are available in the bible for any Christian who might want to take them seriously.
This is true even more so for Islam. No, not all Muslims are terrorists, but violence against women and other human rights violations are a big problem in the Muslim world and are not just the product of a small number of extremists. In fact, in many cases these human rights violations are sanctioned by the state under the authority of Islam.

Originally Posted by Aepervius

And that, is really what make no sense. About as much sense, as , say , condemning all women if one make you ckuckhold, or condemining all men if one rape you. And condemining all kid if one throw a stone at a window. Condemining all atheist because one decided to kill all pastor he saw.

The fact that you are doing it on a philosophy/religion basis (condeming all islam or christianity for the act of a few of those) don't hold water.

The same criticism I offered to Johnny applies here. Being a woman or a child does not entail any worldview, doctrine, philosophy, belief system, etc. And as far as atheism, I am not aware of any atheist creed or bible that contains passages that could be interpreted to mean "kill religious people." But if someone wanted to try to make the argument that something inherent in atheist philosophy can justify killing pastors, I would try to explain why they were wrong, but I wouldn't say they are bigoted for just making the argument. David Berlinski, William Lane Craig and other apologists make similar arguments (that atheism leads to immorality in some way) all the time and I have never heard anyone accuse them of bigotry.

[excaza]

Originally Posted by bluskool

This is true even more so for Islam. No, not all Muslims are terrorists, but violence against women and other human rights violations are a big problem in the Muslim world and are not just the product of a small number of extremists. In fact, in many cases these human rights violations are sanctioned by the state under the authority of Islam.

They're very much the product of a small number of extremists. The heads of states in your overgeneralized "Muslim world" you're complaining about are fundamentalists.

[bluskool]

Originally Posted by excaza

You mean the states run by fundamentalists?

I guess I would need to know what you mean by fundamentalists.

[excaza]

Originally Posted by bluskool

I guess I would need to know what you mean by fundamentalists.

Those who insist on a literal interpretation of whatever holy book you want to choose. You seem to enjoy singling out Islam as if it's any different than other religions. I wouldn't call it bigotry yet, but it's certainly ignorant.

[bluskool]

Originally Posted by excaza

Those who insist on a literal interpretation of whatever holy book you want to choose. You seem to enjoy singling out Islam as if it's any different than other religions. I wouldn't call it bigotry yet, but it's certainly ignorant.

I don't derive any enjoyment from singling out Islam, but let me ask you a question. At this point in history, are more violent acts being committed in the name of Islam than are being committed in the name of any other religion?

If you answer yes, then I think I am justified in singling out Islam as particularly dangerous right now.

If you answer no, then I do not believe I am the one being ignorant.

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by bluskool

I don't derive any enjoyment from singling out Islam, but let me ask you a question. At this point in history, are more violence acts being committed in the name of Islam than are being committed in the name of any other religion?

If you answer yes, then I think I am justified in singling out Islam as particularly dangerous right now.

No, you'd be justified in singling out those who commit violent acts in the name of Islam as dangerous, but not Islam as a whole, because there is no "Islam as a whole".

If there is a group of Muslims who not only don't commit violent acts, but condemn those acts and think the people who did it in the name of Islam are completely mistaken about what Islam is and what the Qu'ran commands, why do you point to the fact that they all label themselves Muslims as a reason to treat them the same? Why is it impossible to differentiate, in your mind, the Muslim who thinks that the Qu'ran commands him to strap TNT to himself and blow up a Jewish preschool from the Muslim who thinks that the Qu'ran commands that there should be freedom of religion and separation of church and state, and treat each of them accordingly?

What you're saying is not really like your homeopathy example. It's more like hearing about a chiropractor who killed a patient because he hated all other modern doctors and thought he could cure the patient's cancer with spinal adjustments, and using that as a justification for protesting the opening of another chiropractor's office where the doctor knows he can only treat back pain with spinal adjustments, and refers all his patient's other medical issues to the proper doctors for treatment.

Yes, both call themselves chiropractors, and work by making spinal adjustments to patients. And both are almost certainly wrong in thinking that spinal adjustments can be used to treat things, period. But they're nothing at all alike in terms of what they believe about chiropractic and in the danger to patients that they present.

Associating all chiropractors with the modern-medicine-hating type who thinks spinal adjustments can cure cancer or replace vaccinations or whatever, regardless of whether any individual chiropractor believes that or condemns it as wrong and utterly antithetical to proper chiropractic, is ignorant, foolish, probably bigoted and certainly groundlessly prejudiced. It's also ultimately counterproductive, since no matter what you do to educate people away from "alternative medicine", there's always gonna be those who buy into it.

And it's far better to embrace those practitioners who are moderate and are fully willing to cooperate and agree with modern medical practices. Because if you treat them all like patient-killing fanatics, and try to get rid of them, all you'll really end up doing is drivng away the reasonable ones and giving credence to the fanatical ones' claims that they're being oppressed by modern medicine which is trying to suppress the Truth, leaving those people who are gonna believe in alternative medicine no matter what you do entirely at the mercy of the dangerous fanatics and placing even those of us who don't believe in alternative medicine at all in danger.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

Objecting to the book burning is blaming all the US (and all Christians) for the actions of a few.
Note the widespread condemnation of this church by EVERYONE, including Christians, in the US and abroad.
Where was the equivalent Muslim condemnation for 9/11? They were dancing in the streets in those countries.
Keep the "moral equivalence" ******** coming, you terrorist apologists...

And someone has lost it......

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by bluskool

Okay, I'll try one more time and then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. There is nothing inherent about being a male that would motivate terrorism. Being male is not an ideology. Being black is not an ideology. Islam is an ideology. Islam is a worldview that it's adherents subscribe to, not a fact of their biology.

First of all, there may be nothing inherent in being male that motivates terrorism specifically, but there is certainly something inherent in being male that motivates acts of violence. So that particular analogy stands.

And to your overall point, I've got a news flash for you: There's nothing inherent in being Muslim that motivates terrorism either. How do I know this? Because the overwhelming majority of 1.5 billion Muslim are not terrorists.

To presume otherwise is, get ready for it... bigotry.

Originally Posted by bluskool

Let me give you what I think is a more appropriate comparison. Let's say there is a homeopath with an office in your town and one of his patients dies of an otherwise preventable disease while the homeopath was "treating" him. Let's say the patient protested and wanted to seek proper medical care, but the homeopath insisted that he stay and that his "treatment" would work. The homeopath then moves out of town and another, unrelated group of homeopaths, who actually condemn the actions of the first homeopath, want to build a homeopathic hospital next to his office. This causes a group of protestors to go down to the site and protest homeopathy for being useless and, in some cases, harmful. They say that the building of the hospital is insensitive because it is right next to a place where another homeopath was responsible for a death.

Now, the protestors might be a little overzealous and even misguided, but would you say they are bigots?

Of course not. Any more than they would be bigots for protesting creationists or flat-earthers. All homeopaths believe something that is demonstrably and factually wrong, and that may directly cause harm; that is what makes them homeopaths.

Peaceful Muslims wishing to build a community center is not harming anyone, nor does it have the potential to harm anyone.

You seem to want to frame the argument with Islam being a "choice" that someone can easily discard. But for many Muslims - as is the case with most devoutly religious people - their religion is their identy. It's who they are. And the Constitution gives them the right to this identity.

To pretend that they can easily just "stop" being Muslim is a tad disingenuous, and about as realistic as pretending a black person can stop being black, or a gay person can stop being gay.

[bluskool]

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

No, you'd be justified in singling out those who commit violent acts in the name of Islam as dangerous, but not Islam as a whole, because there is no "Islam as a whole".

If there is no Islam as a whole, that makes the term "Islam" meaningless. Do you really thin that because diversity exists within Islam, nothing can be said at all about the religion? So if I said "the muslim holy book, known as the koran, says ___," you would say I am wrong to say that because maybe there is a Muslim somewhere who doesn't think the koran is a holy book?

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

If there is a group of Muslims who not only don't commit violent acts, but condemn those acts and think the people who did it in the name of Islam are completely mistaken about what Islam is and what the Qu'ran commands, why do you point to the fact that they all label themselves Muslims as a reason to treat them the same?

This is just a straw man. I never said we should treat all Muslims as terrorists or anything like that. My argument is that it is perfectly reasonable to criticize statements written in the koran and beliefs about them that exist within Islam regardless of whether every single Muslim shares those beliefs. I can say "it is wrong for Muslims to punish apostates with death," and if a Muslim were to say that he/she doesn't believe that and points out that it is not in the koran, good! It's not his/her belief that I am criticizing. But I am certainly not going to be the judge of what Muslim beliefs represent the "true" Islam.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Why is it impossible to differentiate, in your mind, the Muslim who thinks that the Qu'ran commands him to strap TNT to himself and blow up a Jewish preschool from the Muslim who thinks that the Qu'ran commands that there should be freedom of religion and separation of church and state, and treat each of them accordingly?

What are you talking about? Can you please quote where I said or implied anything like the position you are accusing me of taking.

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

What you're saying is not really like your homeopathy example.

Why?

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

It's more like hearing about a chiropractor who killed a patient because he hated all other modern doctors and thought he could cure the patient's cancer with spinal adjustments, and using that as a justification for protesting the opening of another chiropractor's office where the doctor knows he can only treat back pain with spinal adjustments, and refers all his patient's other medical issues to the proper doctors for treatment.

Yes, both call themselves chiropractors, and work by making spinal adjustments to patients. And both are almost certainly wrong in thinking that spinal adjustments can be used to treat things, period. But they're nothing at all alike in terms of what they believe about chiropractic and in the danger to patients that they present.

Associating all chiropractors with the modern-medicine-hating type who thinks spinal adjustments can cure cancer or replace vaccinations or whatever, regardless of whether any individual chiropractor believes that or condemns it as wrong and utterly antithetical to proper chiropractic, is ignorant, foolish, probably bigoted and certainly groundlessly prejudiced. It's also ultimately counterproductive, since no matter what you do to educate people away from "alternative medicine", there's always gonna be those who buy into it.

And it's far better to embrace those practitioners who are moderate and are fully willing to cooperate and agree with modern medical practices. Because if you treat them all like patient-killing fanatics, and try to get rid of them, all you'll really end up doing is drivng away the reasonable ones and giving credence to the fanatical ones' claims that they're being oppressed by modern medicine which is trying to suppress the Truth, leaving those people who are gonna believe in alternative medicine no matter what you do entirely at the mercy of the dangerous fanatics and placing even those of us who don't believe in alternative medicine at all in danger.

Okay, that analogy is fine too. I don't really see what the major relevant differences are in our two analogies.
However, I do disagree with your conclusion. I think it is perfectly fine to make the statement "chiropractic is a dangerous pseudoscientific practice." Does that mean that I think all chiropractors are straights? No, but chiropractic is traditionally based on vitalism and subluxations. The fact that chiropractors exist that are more evidenced based does not change the fact that chiropractic is based on pseudoscientific nonsense.

Let me give you two statements and ask you to tell me why you think they are contradictory since you appear to think they are.
1. At this point in history, Islam is a dangerous religion.
2. Some partitioners of Islam are working to reform the religion and rid it of it's more dangerous elements.

[bluskool]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

First of all, there may be nothing inherent in being male that motivates terrorism specifically, but there is certainly something inherent in being male that motivates acts of violence. So that particular analogy stands.

No, my point is that there is creed or code of maledom in which violent acts are condoned or encouraged.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

And to your overall point, I've got a news flash for you: There's nothing inherent in being Muslim that motivates terrorism either.

That's not how I would put it. I would say there is something inherent about Islam that encourages violence, particularly certain verses in the koran and certain aspects of sharia law. Don't get me wrong, this would apply to Christianity as well. But let's face it, the majority of violence in the world today that is being committed in the name of religion is being committed in the name of Islam.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

How do I know this? Because the overwhelming majority of 1.5 billion Muslim are not terrorists.

To presume otherwise is, get ready for it... bigotry.

Straw man. I certainly never said they were. But let me ask you this; do a majority of Muslims agree that the proper punishment for apostasy is death?

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Of course not. Any more than they would be bigots for protesting creationists or flat-earthers. All homeopaths believe something that is demonstrably and factually wrong...

And this is different from religion how?

Originally Posted by johnny karate

...and that may directly cause harm; that is what makes them homeopaths.

Actually they just give people water which won't harm them unless they do it in place of proper medical treatment. But some homeopaths tell people to also get regular medical treatment and these homeopaths aren't doing anything to cause harm. So by your own reasoning, you have just become a bigot. Welcome to the club!

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Peaceful Muslims wishing to build a community center is not harming anyone, nor does it have the potential to harm anyone.

So let's say that the homeopaths in my analogy won't be either. Everyone who goes to their hospital must also receive proper evidence based care along with the homeopathic "treatments." Does this change your position?

Originally Posted by johnny karate

You seem to want to frame the argument with Islam being a "choice" that someone can easily discard.

Islam is absolutely a choice that can be discarded, just not easily.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

But for many Muslims - as is the case with most devoutly religious people - their religion is their identy. It's who they are. And the Constitution gives them the right to this identity.

What? When did I say people shouldn't have the right to practice their religion?

Originally Posted by johnny karate

To pretend that they can easily just "stop" being Muslim is a tad disingenuous, and about as realistic as pretending a black person can stop being black, or a gay person can stop being gay.

No, you can't stop being black and you can't stop being gay, but you can stop being a Muslim. The only reason your statement sounds reasonable is that you use the word "easily." It being a difficult ideology to abandon does not make it any less an ideology nor any more a fact of biology.

[ANTPogo]

Originally Posted by bluskool

If there is no Islam as a whole, that makes the term "Islam" meaningless. Do you really thin that because diversity exists within Islam, nothing can be said at all about the religion? So if I said "the muslim holy book, known as the koran, says ___," you would say I am wrong to say that because maybe there is a Muslim somewhere who doesn't think the koran is a holy book?

What the specific text is in the Qu'ran is a fact. What someone who says they are a Muslim interprets that text to mean, however, is entirely unknowable. In the sense of "Islam believes X" or "A Muslim believes X", then yes, those are, if not meaningless statements, certainly unhelpful ones.

It's the same with Christianity, since if you want to make a claim that "Christianity believes X" or "A Christian believes X", you have to cover everything from what Jack Chick believes to what Pope Benedict XVI believes to what Bishop John Shelby Spong believes, no easy task considering they differ on such apparently fundamental aspects of "Christianity" as the Resurrection of Jesus and the symbolism of the Last Supper.

It's certainly possible to say "Many Muslims/Christians believe X" or "This specific sect of Islam/Christianity believes X". But anything more than that becomes impossible.

Quote:

This is just a straw man. I never said we should treat all Muslims as terrorists or anything like that. My argument is that it is perfectly reasonable to criticize statements written in the koran and beliefs about them that exist within Islam regardless of whether every single Muslim shares those beliefs. I can say "it is wrong for Muslims to punish apostates with death," and if a Muslim were to say that he/she doesn't believe that and points out that it is not in the koran, good! It's not his/her belief that I am criticizing.

If you criticize a belief that some Muslims hold that's not in the Qu'ran, and yet know that there are Muslims who don't hold that belief and tell you it's not in the Qu'ran, doesn't that kind of imply that what you're criticizing then isn't a belief of Islam as a whole? How do you then make the leap from that to a blanket "Islam believes X" about anything?

Quote:

But I am certainly not going to be the judge of what Muslim beliefs represent the "true" Islam.

And that's what makes saying anything about "Islam" as a whole so useless.

Quote:

What are you talking about? Can you please quote where I said or implied anything like the position you are accusing me of taking.

You made the statement (slightly paraphrased), "Islam is dangerous," by which you seem to mean "The beliefs, scriptures, and creeds of Islam are dangerous." That's a useless statement, in that it cannot be used as any kind of criterion or logical premise to actually decide or categorize something.

Take the Park51 project at the heart of all this controversy, for instance. It's being proposed and will be run by a Muslim imam, and will incorporate a Muslim prayer space (a mosque). Do Rauf and his congregation have the beliefs of Islam? They certainly think so, and Rauf himself has written and spoken extensively about it. Do they have the scriptures of Islam? Again, they think so - Rauf has also written and spoken extensively about the Qu'ran. Do they have the creeds of Islam? Rauf has, yet again, written and spoken about his interpretation of sharia and how he lives an Islamic life, and how other Muslims should too. So, by their own words and actions, they're Islamic.

Are Rauf and the Park51 project dangerous? Not only is that not true, it's laughably not true. Suddenly, the assertion that "Islam is dangerous" has a problem - the Cordoba Initiative people are part of Islam, and yet they're not dangerous.

Quote:

Okay, that analogy is fine too. I don't really see what the major relevant differences are in our two analogies.

Hmm...perhaps you're right. Looking back on what you said, I think now your analogy is basically mine with just the particular pseudoscientific practice changed.

Quote:

However, I do disagree with your conclusion. I think it is perfectly fine to make the statement "chiropractic is a dangerous pseudoscientific practice." Does that mean that I think all chiropractors are straights? No, but chiropractic is traditionally based on vitalism and subluxations. The fact that chiropractors exist that are more evidenced based does not change the fact that chiropractic is based on pseudoscientific nonsense.

Yes, but does that make it dangerous? You say to me, "You're risking your life if you go to a chiropractor, because chiropractic is traditionally based on vitalism and subluxations and you're risking him trying to treat something that a real doctor needs to treat." I then go to a chiropractor that doesn't believe in vitalism and subluxations but just treats back pain, and shares an office with a real doctor who he refers all his patients' other health issues to. Your statement suddenly becomes wrong, since I'm not risking my life in the least by going to such a chiropractor.

Quote:

Let me give you two statements and ask you to tell me why you think they are contradictory since you appear to think they are.
1. At this point in history, Islam is a dangerous religion.
2. Some partitioners of Islam are working to reform the religion and rid it of it's more dangerous elements.

Because the first statement, as revealed by the second statement, falls prey to the Fallacy of Composition: "Parts of Islam are dangerous, therefore Islam is dangerous."

It's the same problem that these two statements have:

1. Utensils are dangerous, since you can be cut with one.
2. Some people are working to replace all the knives in utensil drawers with spoons, so that nobody will be cut.

Knives are utensils, and they're obviously dangerous, since you can be cut with one. But spoons are utensils too, and they're not dangerous, since you can't cut someone or something with it. So you can't say that "utensils are dangerous", since some utensils are obviously not dangerous at all. If someone asks, "Hey, I have a utensil, is it dangerous? Will it cut me?", you can't just say "Yes it is, utensils will cut you, and that's a utensil, so it's dangerous" because the person might have a non-dangerous, non-cutting spoon instead of a dangerous knife. You have to ask, "Well, what kind of utensil?" Then and only then can you say whether it's dangerous or not.

Or, to apply it to your statements,

Extremist Muslims are part of Islam, and they're obviously dangerous, since they support violence and terror attacks. But moderate Muslims are part of Islam too, and they're not dangerous, since they condemn both violence and terror attacks. So you can't say that "Islam is dangerous", since some parts of Islam are obviously not dangerous at all. If someone asks, "Hey, some people here are part of Islam, are they dangerous? Will they support violence and terror attacks?", you can't just say "Yes they are, Islam supports violence and terror attacks, and those people are part of Islam, so it's dangerous" because those people might be non-dangerous, non-violence-and-terror-attack-supporting moderate Muslims instead of extremist Muslims. You have to ask, "Well, which part of Islam do they belong to?" Then and only then can you say whether they're dangerous or not.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by bluskool

I don't derive any enjoyment from singling out Islam, but let me ask you a question. At this point in history, are more violent acts being committed in the name of Islam than are being committed in the name of any other religion?

If you answer yes, then I think I am justified in singling out Islam as particularly dangerous right now.

If you answer no, then I do not believe I am the one being ignorant.

If we ignore witch burning in Africa, abortion terrorism, act of violence in name of jesus (anti gay, anti women) pedophilia among priest, if we also ignore the various stuff made in some small religious cult of christiniaty like forcing young girl to mary men, and we concentrate instead of what the fragging NEWS MEDIA filter out for you, yeah muslim are more violent than christian.

But once you scratch the surface, poor christian are as violent as poor muslim, and rich christian are as bigoted and as misogyn as rich muslim. It can be argued that women place has it worse in muslim country, but on the violence side ? Noper.

The problem is that you are wearing filtering glasses, and condemning a religion over some people acts.

Frankly when it comes down to it, I jsut need to remind you of the north/south ireland conflict, and YES there were violent act commited by christian in THIS period of history as Islamist. And that is not even counting other homegrown terrorism or bigotery leading to certain sexual group being targeted.

Koran when it comes down to it, is not worst than the OT+NT. Muslim are not worst than christian. *Fanatic* on the other hand I will tend to agree the extrem wing are maybe a bit more louder than Christian, but IMHO it is more because media attention. I lived near very ***** christian (saint nicholas du chardonnay in france) and they are as bad as the fanatic muslim. Do i need to remind you of the KKK too ?

Also I am pretty sure other countries would have a lot to tell about christian attack on their home, however YOU think those attacks were justified (Irak, Afghanistan). In the last 10 years there have been almost certainly much much more muslim killed by christian , howver justified YOU think it is, than christian killed by muslim, even counting the horror of 9/11.

If you want my opinion, ban both, burn the book of both. But singling out the muslim because of the act of a few, whereas at the same time ignoring the same bad stuff in christian religion .... please.... That worst than bias, it is pure blindness.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by bluskool

No, my point is that there is creed or code of maledom in which violent acts are condoned or encouraged.

But there is a biological basis for men to be prone to violence. The reason we don't just simply lock up all men to put an end to violent crime is because as a reasonable society we recognize that not all men are governed by their baser, hormonally-driven instincts.

The same goes for Muslims. Of course you can point to passages in the Koran that promote violence. You can do the same with the Bible. But not all Muslims adhere to those particular teachings. Quite a few of them actually disavow them. Just like a lot of Christians disavow the nastier parts of the Bible.

Originally Posted by bluskool

That's not how I would put it. I would say there is something inherent about Islam that encourages violence, particularly certain verses in the koran and certain aspects of sharia law.

I'm sure the millions of non-violent Muslims around the world would disagree with your assessment of their religion.

Originally Posted by bluskool

Don't get me wrong, this would apply to Christianity as well. But let's face it, the majority of violence in the world today that is being committed in the name of religion is being committed in the name of Islam.

So what, violent, extremist Christians get a pass because they might not commit quite as many acts of terrorism as violent, extremist Muslims?

Sorry, but in America it's a level playing field. If not all Christians are held responsible for abortion clinic bombings and child-raping priests, then not all Muslims should be held responsible for 9/11. Anything less is hypocrisy and bigotry.

Originally Posted by bluskool

Straw man. I certainly never said they were. But let me ask you this; do a majority of Muslims agree that the proper punishment for apostasy is death?

I have no idea what all Muslims believe, nor do I care. In a free society, people can believe whatever they want.

If a practitioner of Islam actually murders someone for apostasy, we punish them within the law. What we don't so is punish someone for what we presume they believe.

Originally Posted by bluskool

And this is different from religion how?

Freedom of religion is protected under the First Amendment. Freedom to practice fraudulent and potentially dangerous pseudo-science is not.

Originally Posted by bluskool

Actually they just give people water which won't harm them unless they do it in place of proper medical treatment. But some homeopaths tell people to also get regular medical treatment and these homeopaths aren't doing anything to cause harm. So by your own reasoning, you have just become a bigot. Welcome to the club!

Nothing like adding qualifiers after the fact to attempt to trap your opponent into a position.

Originally Posted by bluskool

So let's say that the homeopaths in my analogy won't be either. Everyone who goes to their hospital must also receive proper evidence based care along with the homeopathic "treatments." Does this change your position?

Since you seem intent on watering down your analogy until it becomes utterly meaningless, I don't see the point in further participating.

Originally Posted by bluskool

No, you can't stop being black and you can't stop being gay, but you can stop being a Muslim. The only reason your statement sounds reasonable is that you use the word "easily." It being a difficult ideology to abandon does not make it any less an ideology nor any more a fact of biology.

Look, this whole thing started because you misinterpreted an analogy I made between bigotry towards black people and bigotry towards Muslims.

And you repeatedly harping on the notion that being black is different than being Muslim (even though my analogy made no such comparison) implies that you think bigotry towards Muslims is acceptable, or least not as egregious as bigotry towards black people. Your so-called bigotry towards homeopaths example reinforces this implication.

You seem to be looking for justification for bigotry towards Muslims.

[rwguinn]

Looks like the whole thing is moot:

Quote:

GAINESVILLE, Fla. - The minister of a Florida church said he has canceled plans to burn copies of the Quran because the leader of a much-opposed plan to build an Islamic Center near ground zero has agreed to move its location. The agreement couldn't be immediately confirmed.

[Corsair 115]

It all seems to be moot now, as this is what is now being reported in my part of the world:

Florida pastor cancels Qur'an burning

As a general note, I preferred the days when the name Terry Jones was recognized first for being a member of the Monty Python troupe...

[dudalb]

I am betting there is no "deal" with Raub, it just a face saving measure by the idiot in question.
Anyway, let's hope his freaking Fifteen minutes of Fame are over.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

It all seems to be moot now, as this is what is now being reported in my part of the world:

Florida pastor cancels Qur'an burning

As a general note, I preferred the days when the name Terry Jones was recognized first for being a member of the Monty Python troupe...

WHo,Ironically enough, did a very good series of documentaries on The Crusades.

[Taarkin]

Originally Posted by dudalb

I am betting there is no "deal" with Raub, it just a face saving measure by the idiot in question.
Anyway, let's hope his freaking Fifteen minutes of Fame are over.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11255366
It looks like he's just going to NY to protest Park51.

Quote:

But the organisers of the New York centre said no agreement had been reached with Mr Jones.

AFP news agency quoted Daisy Khan, wife of the imam behind the project, as saying: "We don't know anything about it".

I'm predicting a reaction of "Jones is canceling his freedom of expression, so why won't Rauf cancel his terror shrine??"

[Fnord]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Freedom of religion is protected under the First Amendment. Freedom to practice fraudulent and potentially dangerous pseudo-science is not.

The difference being ... ?

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Taarkin

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11255366
It looks like he's just going to NY to protest Park51.

I'm predicting a reaction of "Jones is canceling his freedom of expression, so why won't Rauf cancel his terror shrine??"

I am predicting that Jones 15 minutes of fame are over.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Fnord

The difference being ... ?

I'm not arguing in defense of Islam, or any particular religion. I'm arguing in defense of First Amendment rights, and more importantly the equal application of them.

Anyone seeking to turn this into a debate about the folly of religion will find me firmly on their side.

I don't believe in religion.

I believe in the U.S. Constitution.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

As a general note, I preferred the days when the name Terry Jones was recognized first for being a member of the Monty Python troupe...

He should team up with Sarah Palin.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Corsair 115

It all seems to be moot now, as this is what is now being reported in my part of the world:

Florida pastor cancels Qur'an burning

As a general note, I preferred the days when the name Terry Jones was recognized first for being a member of the Monty Python troupe...

It's still on, the closeted homosexuals at Westboro Baptist are going to burn Korans now.

[dudalb]

Yeah, but they are old news and no one will pay much attention.
I wonder if they have recovered from the Humiliation they got handed to them when they tried their crap on Comic Con?

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by WildCat

It's still on, the closeted homosexuals at Westboro Baptist are going to burn Korans now.

Perhaps they'll do everyone a favour and burn Phelps while they are at it.

[alfaniner]

Originally Posted by rwguinn

Looks like the whole thing is moot:

I don't think so. Someone is going to do it anyway (i.e. "Well, if they ain't gonna do it, I will!"), and some extremist bastich is going to do something horrible in retaliation just to prove a point (whether it was actually done or not).

[eeyore1954]

I sure something similar has been posted but this is a insignificant man with a small following. If the media had not hyped the story practically no one would have known.

[Pardalis]

Now he's 'rethinking' his decision to cancel.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/09/flo...ex.html?hpt=T1

All this for a few stacks of paper.

[Thunder]

maybe I should just end this sillyness, by buying a few copies of the Koran, tossing them in a wire trash can, dousing them with lighter fluid, and tossing in a match..for all the world to see on Youtube.

on second thought...naaaaaa.

[bit_pattern]

Originally Posted by dudalb

WHo,Ironically enough, did a very good series of documentaries on The Crusades.

Hmm.. That can go on my download list

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

I'm not arguing in defense of Islam, or any particular religion. I'm arguing in defense of First Amendment rights, and more importantly the equal application of them.

Anyone seeking to turn this into a debate about the folly of religion will find me firmly on their side.

I don't believe in religion.

I believe in the U.S. Constitution.

It's a tricky thing to go against your gut feeling about the insolence of burning books but Americans are rightfully proud of their First Amendment rights. If a militia group urged violent retaliation against flag-burners, would the president of the United States step in to ask that the kids stop burning the stars-n-stripes?