wisdom from a Muslima:

"symbolically, at least, by rejecting literal adherence to certain problematic verses. The Christian faith had to deal with problematic verses from the Book of Deuteronomy that sanctioned violence. Jews have had to confront rigid readings of the Old Testament that sanctioned stonings. Muslims, too, must re-interpret verses that aren't compatible with life in the 21st century."

Ultimately, who cares what Jones does or what the Muslim's reaction would be if he had proceeded? Does it matter as long as *you* understand that hate is destructive and love is constructive and choose what is best for *you*? Isn't this just another incident amongst uncountable, another story illustrating that some people (and a lot of people in this particular drama) simply don't understand what love and hate are, or what the repercussions of each is, and are choosing and learning for themselves in their own way?

I understand it is not the principle, he has every right to his protest, but the consequences.

His action will have specific counter reaction and that will have cause to care for an awful lot of people and their famillies around the World.

Understanding love and hate is a bystander here, it will mean nothing when the reaction inevitably hits.

From what I understand, it is a protest against the Mosque being built in NY, so he has decided the reaction is worth it, many dead already, during the event and after, so lets propagate the disaster and let others suffer for your own propagandor.

Sorry, Mossy, but I think you miss my point. And it is this: love comes with it's consequences, hate comes with it's consequences. How many ways has this been conveyed throughout the ages using various adages? “As you sow so shall you reap” "What comes around goes around." "You make your bed, now lie in it." "He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword." In computer terminology it's "Garbage in, garbage out." In short, we live our ideas and therefore we cannot escape the reality which our ideas then produce. Be it beneficial or be it detrimental. The idea that our thoughts produce experience is for most still an unknown reality, and a reality which we cannot change through our disbelief of it.

The issue here has everything to do with love and hate. In fact, it is only about love and hate. And on which side of the fence each of us sits. In choosing individually, for ourselves only, we will either enter the drama to whatever extent or we will be free from the effects of the drama, no matter what their extent. And so in truth, there are no innocents here. There are ever only people making their individual choices and experiencing the sweet or bitter fruits of their thoughts.

I don't recall hearing outrage from ANY officials when this Holy book burning took place. I presume Obama approved the action.

______________________________________________________

Military burns unsolicited Bibles sent to Afghanistan...

Does the President have to personally approve every action taken by the military?

\

No, of course not. However, when Bibles are being burned, I would suspect this got to the highest levels of the military before the decision was made to burn them.

It would not surprise me in the least if it got to his office before the fact.

No way to find out anyway, as he would simply blame Bush.

"Koan". Is that secret code for "cone" ? Would certainly mellow a few people out which could only be a good thing.

Light up and be mellow, I say.

FLASHBACK. TO 2007...

Christians in Gaza Fear for Their Lives as Muslims Burn Bibles and Destroy Crosses

http://www.associate...heir_lives.html

After defeating their rivals in Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah movement, Muslim extremists are focusing their attacks on Christians in Gaza City. Christians in Gaza City have issued an appeal to the Father Manuel Musallem, head of Gaza's Latin church, told the AP that Muslims have ransacked, burned and looted a school and convent that are part of the Gaza Strip's small Romany Catholic community. He told the AP that crosses were broken, damage was done to a statue of Jesus, and at the Rosary Sister School and nearby convent, prayer books were burned.

Father Musalam additionally told The Jerusalem Post that the Muslim gunmen used rocket-propeled grenades (RPGs) to blow through the doors of the church and school, before burning Bibles and destroying every cross they could get their hands on. international community and a plea for protection against the increased attacks by Muslim extremists.

^ Surprised? Shocked? Outraged? What to do? Choice? Response?

For us non Americans. Quite a good article in the BBC. In the UK we would probably (nay definately)have banned the burning of the Koran as inciting hatred or violence but this explains why the US would not.

Why US government could not have stopped the Koran bonfire

The cancellation of a small Florida church's plans to burn Korans was not a result of government intervention. Nor was it the the product of a legal challenge.

Pastor Terry Jones claimed the issue was resolved through private negotiation with a New York imam, amid talk of repercussions for US troops abroad.

In fact, there was little the federal government could do but but watch - the US constitution rendered it almost powerless to stop the bonfire.

The United States stands apart from many other Western democracies in priding itself on a near absolute commitment to allowing freedom of speech.

It is enshrined in the First Amendment to the US constitution, alongside the right to free exercise of religion.

"Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble," the relevant passage says.

Deeply ingrained in the American psyche, these rights are seen almost as a matter of national identity.

"The fundamental principle is that the government cannot restrict speech based on its content, even if an audience finds it offensive," says Prof Tim Zick, a First Amendment specialist from the William and Mary Law School.

As a nation, he says, America has made a very different calculation about the protection of the speaker versus the dignity of the audience than many countries in Europe. America prioritises the autonomy of the speaker.

Denying the Holocaust, for example, is illegal in 16 European countries. Germany has banned the production and dissemination of pro-Nazi material.

But in the US, the courts have protected the rights of Nazis to express their views.

In one well-known case, the Supreme Court invoked the First Amendment to uphold the right of a neo-Nazi group to march through the predominantly Jewish town of Skokie, Illinois, and display swastikas.

The courts have decided that speech encompasses a wide array of non-verbal actions intended to communicate a message. That means symbolic acts such as the burning of a cross or Bible are protected under the free speech clause.

"Generally the first amendment protects offensive, repugnant and even hateful speech," says David Hudson, a scholar at the First Amendment Center in Washington DC.

That is why, in America, demonstrators can legally burn the American flag or the Ku Klux Klan can burn crosses, even though such activities can both outrage and offend.

"Even with respect to one of our most sacred symbols - the American flag - burning is lawful," says Mr Zick.

Such protections exist only up to a point. When speech crosses the line into threats which may directly incite violence or lawlessness, the First Amendment no longer applies.

Mr Hudson stresses that for legal purposes a threat must be imminent. "You have to show the immediacy of harm," he says.

For example, a Ku Klux Klansman may legally burn a cross on his own property as a political statement, regardless of how offensive his intentions may be to many.

But if he were to burn that cross or hang a noose at the house of a black American, the courts might consider his action an incitation of violence against that individual.

For that he could be arrested and tried.

The case of Ku Klux Klan cross-burning however is a specific exception. It has long historical associations with racism and violence against minorities in America.

"It would be difficult I think to categorise the burning of a book as a true threat," says Mr Hudson.

Nor could burning a Koran be considered a hate crime.

"The offence is to the object, which is obviously sacred, but it would not fall under hate crimes because it's not a crime affecting a person," says Mr Zick.

Pastor Jones has said that his bonfire was intended to send a message to Americans that they need to "stand up" to radical Islamists.

He would have burned books on private land, owned by his church. If he were to have moved his protest to outside a mosque, it is possible he could have been charged with disorderly conduct or breach of the peace.

But even then, Mr Zick notes, legal precedent means police are obliged to protect a person's right to speak.

If authorities had wished to clamp down on Pastor Jones, the only legal avenues would have been quite banal. He needed a permit to hold an outdoor fire in Florida, and even before the event was called off, he did not have one.

so some muslim leaders, outraged at the thought of this guy burning Koran decreed that if he were to do it then muslims should react with violence.

hmm, kettle, are you black?

Neither is right but they are certainly all wanke_rs.

I find it interesting that the Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the same god but you would never know it from all the crap in the news. All this trouble we have in the world today isn't like hooligan fans of rival football clubs battling it out. It's like three groups of hooligans from the SAME club fighting amongst themselves.

I can see where the Jews - who came first here - might say the other two that followed much later aren't true believers. But Islam recognises Moses and Jesus as prophets and their Mohammed was the final prophet who followed them.

I find it interesting that the Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the same god but you would never know it from all the crap in the news. All this trouble we have in the world today isn't like hooligan fans of rival football clubs battling it out. It's like three groups of hooligans from the SAME club fighting amongst themselves.

I can see where the Jews - who came first here - might say the other two that followed much later aren't true believers. But Islam recognises Moses and Jesus as prophets and their Mohammed was the final prophet who followed them.

Just because the Muslim extremists claim to be acting in the name of the Muslim faith, clearly their actions are not consistent with Muslim teachings. I know nothing about Muslim theology, and therefore I pose the question: Why is it the Muslims, and not any other religions, that have extremists dedicated to eliminating Western civilization?

I find it interesting that the Jews, Christians and Muslims all worship the same god but you would never know it from all the crap in the news. All this trouble we have in the world today isn't like hooligan fans of rival football clubs battling it out. It's like three groups of hooligans from the SAME club fighting amongst themselves.

I can see where the Jews - who came first here - might say the other two that followed much later aren't true believers. But Islam recognises Moses and Jesus as prophets and their Mohammed was the final prophet who followed them.

Just because the Muslim extremists claim to be acting in the name of the Muslim faith, clearly their actions are not consistent with Muslim teachings.

What religion ever follows its own teachings? Maybe we should allow religious freedom but keep it a private, a personal relationship between a person and his/her diety. Then illegalize congregating to pray or worship because that's when the shit seems to begin to get out of hand with people being manipulated.

I know nothing about Muslim theology, and therefore I pose the question: Why is it the Muslims, and not any other religions, that have extremists dedicated to eliminating Western civilization?

I can't guess at an answer but I guarantee that if they succeed, they will head east with the Hindus likely being next.

Why do you think its only Muslims that are violent?

http://www.tamileelamnews.com/cgi-bin/news/exec/view.cgi/1/1557

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5186703.ece

Why do you think its only Muslims that are violent?

http://www.tamileela...view.cgi/1/1557

http://www.timesonli...icle5186703.ece

Muslims probably make up over 90-95% of the religious violence over the past 30 years. But you're right, if you look hard enough you can find examples from other religions as well.

Why do you think its only Muslims that are violent?

http://www.tamileelamnews.com/cgi-bin/news/exec/view.cgi/1/1557

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5186703.ece

If your question is posed to me, I never said that 'only' Muslims are violent. What I asked was "Why is it the Muslims, and not any other religions, that have extremists dedicated to eliminating Western civilization?"

not any other? christianity isn't a construct of western civilization?

Anyway, the thing that always interests me about these kinds of debates, and you see it everywhere, not just Thaivisa is the number of people who fail to grasp that you can condemn one group without having to condone the other.

I condemn extremists be they Muslim, Christian whatever, and since this thread is about a Christian extremist, I point that out. And yet there are those who see that as condoning Muslim violence.

I see the same thing in news with people condemning red shirt violence as being yellow shirts and vice versa.

Are these people's minds' so concrete that they can't grasp the concept?

Why do you think its only Muslims that are violent?

http://www.tamileelamnews.com/cgi-bin/news/exec/view.cgi/1/1557

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5186703.ece

As somebody once said..."Two wrongs don't make a right. Period."

I don't recall hearing outrage from ANY officials when this Holy book burning took place. I presume Obama approved the action.

______________________________________________________

Military burns unsolicited Bibles sent to Afghanistan...

Does the President have to personally approve every action taken by the military?

In the US he is the Commander-in-Chief and therefore ultimately responsible for all actions of the military.

The non-proselytising policy is also cast-in-stone in many Western armies and thus leads the way for missionaries who follow these armies. But they are non-state sponsored in most cases.

Even though Oxfam and similar charities do good works, many are non-proselytising as well.

This has been the case for most of the last century - but before that the western attitude was much as the Muslim attitude is now - "here is help - join with us and you may receive it"

(I am thinking of Southern Africa, up to the beginning of the First World War, when missionaries were rife in the tribal lands / also China up to the Japanese invasion)

not any other? christianity isn't a construct of western civilization?

Anyway, the thing that always interests me about these kinds of debates, and you see it everywhere, not just Thaivisa is the number of people who fail to grasp that you can condemn one group without having to condone the other.

I condemn extremists be they Muslim, Christian whatever, and since this thread is about a Christian extremist, I point that out. And yet there are those who see that as condoning Muslim violence.

I see the same thing in news with people condemning red shirt violence as being yellow shirts and vice versa.

Are these people's minds' so concrete that they can't grasp the concept?

Christianity is a segment of western civilization. It appears that Muslim extremists have it in for all of western civilization.

I too condemn all extremists whose mission is to destroy. However, evidence is overwhelming that the Muslim extremists are by far the most virulent.

not any other? christianity isn't a construct of western civilization?

Anyway, the thing that always interests me about these kinds of debates, and you see it everywhere, not just Thaivisa is the number of people who fail to grasp that you can condemn one group without having to condone the other.

I condemn extremists be they Muslim, Christian whatever, and since this thread is about a Christian extremist, I point that out. And yet there are those who see that as condoning Muslim violence.

I see the same thing in news with people condemning red shirt violence as being yellow shirts and vice versa.

Are these people's minds' so concrete that they can't grasp the concept?

Christianity is a segment of western civilization. It appears that Muslim extremists have it in for all of western civilization.

I too condemn all extremists whose mission is to destroy. However, evidence is overwhelming that the Muslim extremists are by far the most virulent.

Sadly no,

Take the Balkans or the Lebanese civil war. Outrage after outrage committed by all denominations in the name of their God.

Difference now is the Muslims haven't quite stirred the lunatic Christian elements enough to repay them in kind, yet.............. That's coming.

And now another idiot gets involved

Australian lawyer smokes pages of Bible and Koran, asking 'Which is best?'An Australian lawyer, Alex Stewart, has smoked pages torn from the Koran and the Bible, posting the video on YouTube just days after an American Pastor's threat to burn the Muslim holy book caused worldwide outrage.

Published: 5:12AM BST 13 Sep 2010

In a 12-minute clip entitled "Bible or Koran – which burns best?" Mr Stewart, who works for the Queensland University of Technology, holds up the two religious texts before ripping them apart and lighting the rolled up pages.

At one stage he inhales deeply from one of the roll-ups before blowing out the smoke and commenting: "Holy".

Last week Terry Jones, a controversial Christian preacher who presides over a small church in Florida, drew international condemnation after announcing a plan to burn 200 copies of the Koran.

"With respect to books like the Bible and the Koran, whatever, just get over it," Mr Stewart said in the footage. "The video was a joke video, of course," he added.

"People do this stuff all the time and if people get really upset about this then they're taking it far too seriously."

Mr Stewart, a member of an atheist group in Brisbane, has begun a period of leave following a meeting with his employers today. He insists he wasn't smoking drugs in the video but had sprinkled grass cuttings into the rolled up pages.

"The university is obviously extremely, extremely unhappy and disappointed that this sort of incident should occur," Queensland University of Technology vice-chancellor Peter Coaldrake said.

Islamic groups urged Muslims not to react to the provocation

"There is no need for this kind of thing, just to create disunity and disharmony among people living in Australia," said Sheik Muhammad Wahid, president of the Islamic Association of Australia.

So the guy is likely to lose his job and stands little chance of getting anything similar.

And he's a lawyer????

If my time on Thaivisa has taught me anything at all its that some people like to stir up trouble for absolutely no reason at all except they are f**kwits.

If my time on Thaivisa has taught me anything at all its that some people like to stir up trouble for absolutely no reason at all except they are f**kwits.

I know where you're coming from, but be kind we do need the mods after all

As to the topic, copycats inevitable, however in this case extremely dangerous as they will not be taken for the poor, copy cat fools they are and the rage in the East will burn ever brighter.

If my time on Thaivisa has taught me anything at all its that some people like to stir up trouble for absolutely no reason at all except they are f**kwits.

As I have often said "If there was peace and love throughout the world, I'd be out of a job."

If everyone was civil on ThaiVisa, how would the mods occupy their time?

15 shot dead in the Kashmir, linked to protests. Hope the idiot is happy now, people are being killed for his ego.

If my time on Thaivisa has taught me anything at all its that some people like to stir up trouble for absolutely no reason at all except they are f**kwits.

"I've just downloaded the Koran.

Would you like me to burn you a copy?"!!!

15 shot dead in the Kashmir, linked to protests. Hope the idiot is happy now, people are being killed for his ego.

Well now I think it's up to 17, posssibly 19 dead, can't find the latest article now. But you conveniently left out some facts. The protests were primarily anti-Indian, the Koran stuff was just a secondary factor. Those people chose to go to that protest and probably had a good idea it could turn violent. Anyway, I doubt the pastor will lose any sleep over something like that, I know I don't.

Reports of Koran desecration in the US trigger fresh protests on 13 September, leaving 15 more dead.

Funny, the above headline copied from the BBC ?

Which part did I leave out ?

Reports of Koran desecration in the US trigger fresh protests on 13 September, leaving 15 more dead.

Funny, the above headline copied from the BBC ?

Which part did I leave out ?

How about all of the other headlines? If you want to misrepresent the situation, that's up to you and the BBC I guess. As stated in that headline though, there had already been protests going on and they have progressively grown more violent, but as I stated, they were primarily against Indian rule, they just used the potential Koran incident as an excuse to escalate the violence.

15 shot dead in the Kashmir, linked to protests. Hope the idiot is happy now, people are being killed for his ego.

Well now I think it's up to 17, posssibly 19 dead, can't find the latest article now. But you conveniently left out some facts. The protests were primarily anti-Indian, the Koran stuff was just a secondary factor. Those people chose to go to that protest and probably had a good idea it could turn violent. Anyway, I doubt the pastor will lose any sleep over something like that, I know I don't.

spot on