Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/2/11 09:45 AM, morefngdbs wrote::

Can you not see just how fucking unbelievably stupid that is.

What i was saying now is that what the pastor did was wrong. My current line of argument isn't meant to tie it to the deaths, it's just to show that he did something wrong and why many people believe it.

Can you not grasp that ?

Can you grasp that people can, and many will, be seriously offended when their holy book is desecrated, especially in the manner and tone the pastor did it?

These people aren't religious by any stretch of the imagination, they're murderous scum. Their book of peace is a fucking sham. Their entire ideology is bullshit. They themselves are hypocrits of the very highest order.

The first and the last sentence are 100% correct. The middle two are 100% incorrect. These people are crazy nuts, and hypocrites. Islam, and the Quran is neither a sham nor bullshit. I have known many people, more than most Americans, who have used the Quran and Islam to live peaceful and very productive lives.

It's the nuttiness, not the religion, that cause the terrorists to attack.

Because if you are a member of the RELIGION OF PEACE...one should reasonably expect....you don't go around murdering anyone.

Exactly, and that is why the abiding Muslims I have met all decry the terrorists as false.

I never claimed that the terrorists attacked out of anything aside from nuttiness, even when I tied the pastor to the attacks. The offensiveness is just one of the many ways I believe the pastor committed a wrong when he burned the Quran.

I'd just like to point out two things:

Firstly, these radical Muslims kill other Muslims far, far more than any white, Christian American. The Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting each other for over a thousand years, and the splinter groups that want an oppressive pan-Islamist regime brought about through blood are far from the norm. Most Muslims are normal, law abiding people, and you probably wouldn't even be able to tell if someone is Muslim or not by a glace because, contrary to popular belief, most Muslim men shave and don't wear turbans, and most Muslim women dress like they want and drive cars, and both are normally in monogamous marriages.

Secondly, morefngdbs is a perfect example of how atheists can be just as pushy and dickish as any religious zealot. You know, saying "The only right beliefs are mine and anyone else is just stupid."

At 5/2/11 12:43 PM, altanese-mistress wrote: I'd just like to point out two things:

Firstly, these radical Muslims kill other Muslims far, far more than any white, Christian American.

Doesn't make it any less deplorable. So why point it out?

The Sunnis and Shiites have been fighting each other for over a thousand years, and the splinter groups that want an oppressive pan-Islamist regime brought about through blood are far from the norm.

You forgot Wahabism. And how we're sorta allied with them more than the sunni and shi'a. And how they're the most bloodthirsty of the three.

Details though, eh?

Most Muslims are normal, law abiding people, and you probably wouldn't even be able to tell if someone is Muslim or not by a glace because, contrary to popular belief, most Muslim men shave and don't wear turbans, and most Muslim women dress like they want and drive cars, and both are normally in monogamous marriages.

Except when they aren't :(

Secondly, morefngdbs is a perfect example of how atheists can be just as pushy and dickish as any religious zealot. You know, saying "The only right beliefs are mine and anyone else is just stupid."

Don't be foolish, you know, by putting words into others' mouths. If you're asserting no true scotsman here, fine. The snide commentary doesn't do anything.

Enjoy.

At 5/2/11 04:02 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 5/2/11 12:43 PM, altanese-mistress wrote: Secondly, morefngdbs is a perfect example of how atheists can be just as pushy and dickish as any religious zealot. You know, saying "The only right beliefs are mine and anyone else is just stupid."

Don't be foolish, you know, by putting words into others' mouths. If you're asserting no true scotsman here, fine. The snide commentary doesn't do anything.

Pot calling the kettle black I see... Either way Altanese is exactly right. People like morefngdbs and Pox like to go after religions for being dickish, and pushy, and basing an entire position off of no proof, yet they fail to realize that when they inject this into serious debate they come as dickish, pushy, and end up basing an entire viewpoint on little to no evidence. All this serves to do is distract from the real points.

And what exactly are these last posts supposed to accomplish other than bitching up the atmosphere?

How is this any better?

At 5/2/11 08:28 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: And what exactly are these last posts supposed to accomplish other than bitching up the atmosphere?

Really? You of all people saying that?

How is this any better?

It's better because it is showing many of the people that what he did was wrong on numerous levels. That just because some is an atheist doesn't mean that religious people's view and feelings are automatically BS.

At 5/2/11 09:28 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 5/2/11 08:28 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: And what exactly are these last posts supposed to accomplish other than bitching up the atmosphere?

Really? You of all people saying that?

Yes, me of all people, wrote that.

Did you, of all people, understand what it said?

just because some is an atheist doesn't mean that religious people's view and feelings are automatically BS.

So it wasn't a religously affiliated American inciting religiously affiliated Middle Easterners?

I thought your whole argument that the reverend had blood on his hands stemmed from your own prejudices. I guess you're more like Obama, saying one thing while tossing out the obvious sequitur in favor of a straw man.

Way to go chump.

At 5/2/11 11:54 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: So it wasn't a religously affiliated American inciting religiously affiliated Middle Easterners?

Where did you get this? No shit it was a faux religiously affiliated idiot in America inciting faux religious idiots in the Middle east. but that has zero to do with the comment I made before.

People like morefngbs come in and start spouting off ideas and then back it up by saying "religious people are stupid so there's no way they can feel bad when one of their books is desecrated." That is what my comment was about, how assinine that comment is.

I thought your whole argument that the reverend had blood on his hands stemmed from your own prejudices.

What prejudices do you speak of?

I guess you're more like Obama, saying one thing while tossing out the obvious sequitur in favor of a straw man.

OK, I'll play along here. Point out my sequitur and my straw man.

At 5/3/11 12:12 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 5/2/11 11:54 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: So it wasn't a religously affiliated American inciting religiously affiliated Middle Easterners?

Where did you get this? No shit it was a faux religious

They aren't fake religions.

People like morefngbs come in and start spouting off ideas and then back it up by saying "religious people are stupid

He was calling you stupid. Along with others who think the American did wrong. And he's actually right.

I thought your whole argument that the reverend had blood on his hands stemmed from your own prejudices.

What prejudices do you speak of?

The one that places blame where none exists for no logical reason. That one. Right there. See it? There it is, looking you right in the face. Oops, you may have missed it. Keep looking.

I guess you're more like Obama, saying one thing while tossing out the obvious sequitur in favor of a straw man.

OK, I'll play along here. Point out my sequitur and my straw man.

Tossing out means dismissing in the context above. Your straw man is attacking the argument that more never made.

Of course, you still might not see that through your own foggy goggles.

At 5/3/11 12:21 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: They aren't fake religions.

Now you're just twisting words.

He was calling you stupid. Along with others who think the American did wrong. And he's actually right.

He was responding to those who says what the pastor did was wrong on the grounds that descrating a holy book is wrong. He then said that it is not wrong because the holy books aren't holy, and imputed his disrespect for religion into the religious. I suggest you pay attention and read an entire line of comments before making judgments about them.

The one that places blame where none exists for no logical reason. That one. Right there. See it? There it is, looking you right in the face. Oops, you may have missed it. Keep looking.

There is definitely a logical reason, but aside from, that how is that a 'prejudice'?

Tossing out means dismissing in the context above. Your straw man is attacking the argument that more never made.

He made the argument that any wrong based on the idea that desecrating the holy book of another is false, because the books are false. My recent line of comments have been directly addressing this. Again I suggest you read an entire string of comments before judging them.

At 5/3/11 12:33 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 5/3/11 12:21 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: They aren't fake religions.

Now you're just twisting words.

lol you get it!

Now get off more's dick with the same BS

I thought I'd have to post one more time for you! Thanks!

At 4/8/11 11:41 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 4/7/11 01:05 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Yeah, and that shows what kind of misguided people they are. However, that still does not make Jones free from all fault. The blood of the people who died is on his hands. If I smack a hornet's nest and they sting a kid to death, I am still at fault (at least morally)

If that's the case, blood would be on your own hands if a terrorist read this and took offense to being likened to an animal or child.

Quote mining is so you can understand I've been here the whole time, and noticed your bigotry early on.

At 5/3/11 12:39 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Quote mining is so you can understand I've been here the whole time, and noticed your bigotry early on.

What bigotry?

At 5/3/11 12:41 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 5/3/11 12:39 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Quote mining is so you can understand I've been here the whole time, and noticed your bigotry early on.

What bigotry?

That a portion of what you call "faux religion" is made up of angry wasp-like creatures who kill righteously (their words, not mine) whenever someone defiles a nest, even if that nest is fully their own property.

It's almost as if you're projecting yourself on morefng, without actually getting it.

Can you really logically defend yourself when you say the reverend is faulty? Really? I don't think you can.

At 5/3/11 12:46 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: That a portion of what you call "faux religion" is made up of angry wasp-like creatures who kill righteously (their words, not mine) whenever someone defiles a nest, even if that nest is fully their own property.

The "faux-religious" I was talking about was questioning the religousness of those who would kill based on descration of their book. I was actually making an attempt to differntiate their twisted view of Islam from the real mainstream version.

Can you really logically defend yourself when you say the reverend is faulty? Really? I don't think you can.

If he thinks it's Christian to brun the book of another with the sole intent to insult and inflame, then yes, I question how Christian he really is.

At 5/3/11 12:50 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 5/3/11 12:46 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: That a portion of what you call "faux religion" is made up of angry wasp-like creatures who kill righteously (their words, not mine) whenever someone defiles a nest, even if that nest is fully their own property.

The "faux-religious" I was talking about was questioning the religousness of those who would kill based on descration of their book. I was actually making an attempt to differntiate their twisted view of Islam from the real mainstream version.

The one that says homosexuals should be killed? Bigot.

Can you really logically defend yourself when you say the reverend is faulty? Really? I don't think you can.

If he thinks it's Christian to brun the book of another with the sole intent to insult and inflame, then yes, I question how Christian he really is.

Not being a christian=/=blood on his hands

If Individuals are chided for opposing Islam on Liberal Soil, we've admitted to the superiority of Islam Vis-a-vis the principle that might makes right.

At 5/3/11 12:53 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: The one that says homosexuals should be killed? Bigot.

No idea is perfect. Every ideology has skeletons in its closet. Even then all of the Muslims I have met have no problem with homosexuals. Heck I even took one to a gay pride evnt and he very much enjoyed himself.

Not being a christian=/=blood on his hands

No, burning the book of another hoping that an attack will be the result = blood on his hands. It isn't even that an attack happened that puts blood on his hands, it's the fact that he wanted an attack to result.

If Individuals are chided for opposing Islam on Liberal Soil, we've admitted to the superiority of Islam Vis-a-vis the principle that might makes right.

Not really. Insulting any religion in such a manner is bad. the reason this stings more is because of the already chafed state between the West and the Islamic world.

At 5/3/11 12:58 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 5/3/11 12:53 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: The one that says homosexuals should be killed? Bigot.

No idea is perfect. Every ideology has skeletons in its closet. Even then all of the Muslims I have met have no problem with homosexuals. Heck I even took one to a gay pride evnt and he very much enjoyed himself.

Well you can claim no true scotsman til the cows come home, but I'd like to make you dance one more time:

Though a Florida pastor called off his plans to burn the Muslim holy book, the channel showed footage of a different man destroying a Quran.

How culpable is the media?

Not being a christian=/=blood on his hands

No, burning the book of another hoping that an attack will be the result

You can't prove he had hope, so why argue it? If he suspected Islamo-violence against innocents would be the response, his political activism was not only dead-on, but actually needed to unveil the eyes of people like you who are blind to the threat of "faux Islam".

If Individuals are chided for opposing Islam on Liberal Soil, we've admitted to the superiority of Islam Vis-a-vis the principle that might makes right.

Not really.

Elaborate.

At 5/3/11 01:12 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: You can't prove he had hope, so why argue it? If he suspected Islamo-violence against innocents would be the response, his political activism was not only dead-on, but actually needed to unveil the eyes of people like you who are blind to the threat of "faux Islam".

He doesn't care about the nuts. He is burning a Quran. He is trying to make the innocents blame the whole of Islam for that acts of a crazy few. If he wanted to go after the crazies, he could burned something that represents only them.

Elaborate.

The descration of a holy book, or place in order to turn people against that religion is offensive and wrong. Any intent to insult for the purpose of insulting is morally wrong. The fact that he directed it as Islam when a large portion of society is already expressing anger at the religion for acts it did not commit only makes it worse. Whereas normally it would be about as wrong as going up to a random person and insulting them, the current circumstances in society today make it much stronger.

At 5/2/11 04:02 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Doesn't make it any less deplorable. So why point it out?

Because there are people who assume Islam is a single, unified 'political movement' (not even a religion) that all Muslims are in on.

You forgot Wahabism. And how we're sorta allied with them more than the sunni and shi'a. And how they're the most bloodthirsty of the three.

No, I didn't forget the Wahabi movement, but it is very minor. Hell, there are more people in the Suffi movement, and they're a very tolerant and peaceful sect. In any case, your statement implies the SUnni and Shia branches of Islam are 'bloodthirsty', which they most certainly are not.

Except when they aren't :(

"Everything is a circle except the things that are not."

What I described IS the overwhelming majority of Muslims. That is to say, normal, well adjusted people who you couldn't even tell are Muslim by a glance.

Don't be foolish, you know, by putting words into others' mouths. If you're asserting no true scotsman here, fine. The snide commentary doesn't do anything.

It was already pointed out, but what I meant was that people attack religions and the religious for being pushy and attacking everyone else for being different, and that it is so ironic and sad that in doing so they are also being pushy and bigoted.

At 5/3/11 01:20 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 5/3/11 01:12 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: You can't prove he had hope, so why argue it? If he suspected Islamo-violence against innocents would be the response, his political activism was not only dead-on, but actually needed to unveil the eyes of people like you who are blind to the threat of "faux Islam".

He doesn't care about the nuts.

Seems to me he's saying the book misleads people into believing unrighteous things and then goes ahead and burns it.

He is burning a Quran. He is trying to make the innocents blame the whole of Islam for that acts of a crazy few. If he wanted to go after the crazies, he could burned something that represents only them.

How can you assume so much without also considering that the Quran contains ALL the violent rhetoric used by the people who "represent only themselves".

Elaborate.

The descration of a holy book, or place in order to turn people against that religion is offensive and wrong.

Is it also wrong to impose a religion upon a populace against their will?

Any intent to insult for the purpose of insulting is morally wrong.

I recall it being a protest against the spread of a religion that promotes honor killing and subjugation.

The fact that he directed it as Islam when a large portion of society is already expressing anger at the religion for acts it did not commit only makes it worse. Whereas normally it would be about as wrong as going up to a random person and insulting them, the current circumstances in society today make it much stronger.

I think you're full of it for a few reasons. First, you can't blame society at large for an anger that can only be felt individually. If you want to say society is angry at the whole of Islam for not cracking down on it's "nuts", I'd cut you more slack. Debasing the population at large because it doesn't fit your argument is pretty weak sauce.

At 5/3/11 01:31 AM, altanese-mistress wrote:

At 5/2/11 04:02 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Doesn't make it any less deplorable. So why point it out?

Because there are people who assume Islam is a single, unified 'political movement' (not even a religion) that all Muslims are in on.

Once you start grafting religion into law, you traverse into "political movements".

It's not rocket science.

You forgot Wahabism. And how we're sorta allied with them more than the sunni and shi'a. And how they're the most bloodthirsty of the three.

No, I didn't forget the Wahabi movement, but it is very minor. Hell, there are more people in the Suffi movement, and they're a very tolerant and peaceful sect. In any case, your statement implies the SUnni and Shia branches of Islam are 'bloodthirsty', which they most certainly are not.

If they have been at war for generations over inheritance of a religion what are they? Disagreeable?

Except when they aren't :(

"Everything is a circle except the things that are not."

Yep. Nothing new or special from my side, just an obvious observation. You don't "see" the "normal" muslims until Nadal Hassan breaks the mold and reminds everyone why prejudices still exist thousands of years into human evolution.

What I described IS the overwhelming majority of Muslims. That is to say, normal, well adjusted people who you couldn't even tell are Muslim by a glance.

Yes.

Don't be foolish, you know, by putting words into others' mouths. If you're asserting no true scotsman here, fine. The snide commentary doesn't do anything.

It was already pointed out, but what I meant was that people attack religions and the religious for being pushy and attacking everyone else for being different, and that it is so ironic and sad that in doing so they are also being pushy and bigoted.

Arguing that the religious texts don't deserve special status isn't bigoted.

At 5/3/11 01:40 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Once you start grafting religion into law, you traverse into "political movements".

Most countries with significant Muslim populations are modern and secular. They are also normally conservative, but that isn't anything new in any form of government or religion.

If they have been at war for generations over inheritance of a religion what are they? Disagreeable?

Saying they are at war is like saying Protestants and Catholics are at war. They have never been at war in either case. There have been states that expressed one branch as true and warred against other states, and conflicts between branches on smaller levels that aren't state sponsored.

Yes.

If you realize that, then that argument was not meant for you.

Arguing that the religious texts don't deserve special status isn't bigoted.

I'm not going to get into that, but I've already stated earlier that I disagree with any book being burned.

At 5/3/11 01:50 AM, altanese-mistress wrote: I'm not going to get into that, but I've already stated earlier that I disagree with any book being burned.

;;;
I agree with you on this point, but I believe the rights of an individual to do what they wish to their own property trumps the rights of any book.
In simple language, I see no problem with you burning anything you own.
I may not like it, but it certainly is no reason to get your drawers in a twist.

I would once again like to clear up the misunderstanding that I am an Atheist.
I am not.
What I am is 150% against fucking religious morons, any religious moron & their twisted values & their religious beliefs. Because they're twisted & IMO completely outside the ideology of peaceful religious observation.
George Carlin said it best when he said " keep thy religion to thyself " as being what makes for a good religious person.

God has never created a religion, find me one religion created by god .

Mankind has allowed his predjudices, his fears & his quest for "answers" to allow other men who are not similarily affected to seize on these weaknesses & use it to their advantage, to control others.
Which is fine if your into that, you want to follow 'cause its easier, go for it. Just don't try & shove it down my throat & tell me its good for me.

Religious belief is a balm to the weak minded, I don't need reassurance that someone will be there to 'save me" & take my hand when I die.
Millions of other people are not so strong in conviction, but don't let that be a reason to call me an atheist.
I believe in an Ultimate power.
I don't know what it is.
I do know it didn't directly create you or me & it doesn't give a shit one way or the other about us in the grand scheme of the universe.
The creator doesn't have to care about what it creates.
That view is a human emotional response, possibly because we as a species generally care for our young. aka-our creations-
No ladies & gents, one doesn't have to believe in any religion to believe in a greater power.

I still feel that atheists are as good or in some cases better people than religious ones. You see they are being good & upstanding citizens, simply because they want to.
Where every religious person has been promised a "r e w a r d" for following their religious leaders. Every religion promises heaven, or rebirth, 59 virgins...(that actually sounds hellish to me)...something to the faithful, having no religious affiliation or being agnostic or atheist means living each day with the knowledge of no reward.

At 5/3/11 01:34 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Seems to me he's saying the book misleads people into believing unrighteous things and then goes ahead and burns it.

He's burning the book assuming that his own book doesn't do the same exact thing, or that ANY book for that matter. I mean hell, if Cather in the Rye (one of the worst books I have ever read) can motivate someone to do bad acts any book can. Does that mean that is how the book is supposed to be read? Not a chance. The pastor should also heed the parable "those in glass houses"

Also, don't you think that if the violence was a true part of Islam it would be the rule as opposed to the exception?

How can you assume so much without also considering that the Quran contains ALL the violent rhetoric used by the people who "represent only themselves".

Oh, so I see it worked on you. There is violent stuff everywhere, yet that vast majority of people are not violent. Violent religious texts, violent stories, violent music, violent sports, and so on. Imputing a violent aspect to all of the followers is nothing less than ignorant and foolish. The pastor is trying to press his ignorance on people.

Is it also wrong to impose a religion upon a populace against their will?

Yes, and any State that does that is wrong. it is not a religion's fault when a state that champions it is a dictatorship and treats ts people poorly.

I recall it being a protest against the spread of a religion that promotes honor killing and subjugation.

Again, the pastor shouldn't throw stones...

This also reminds me of numerous protests against those money grubbing Jews who kept Germany in the dumps from 1918 until the thirties...

I think you're full of it for a few reasons. First, you can't blame society at large for an anger that can only be felt individually. If you want to say society is angry at the whole of Islam for not cracking down on it's "nuts", I'd cut you more slack. Debasing the population at large because it doesn't fit your argument is pretty weak sauce.

I'm not blaming society for anything. I am blaming the pastor. The pastor is insulting and provoking the Muslims at a time when relations are icy at best. There is a fear among the Islamic community at large that the Christian west is trying to subjugate them, and when you see people like the pastor you begin to understand why.

Also, please inform me as to what I have been debasing. If you stopped using such negative words you might be able to get a point accross instead of tripping over your own tongue.

At 5/3/11 10:49 AM, Camarohusky wrote: He's burning the book assuming that his own book doesn't do the same exact thing, or that ANY book for that matter.

nothing wrong with hypocrisy.

I mean hell, if Cather in the Rye (one of the worst books I have ever read) can motivate someone to do bad acts any book can. Does that mean that is how the book is supposed to be read? Not a chance.

who says that wasn't its real intention, and that burning it out of existence is our only salvation from the apocalypse it was intended to unleash?

The pastor should also heed the parable "those in glass houses"

i'd rather he not; things are so much more fun when people fighting religion for religion don't realise why it doesn't make sense.

Also, don't you think that if the violence was a true part of Islam it would be the rule as opposed to the exception?

and as an exception, how could a violent act be the responsibility of the offender and not the instigators and perpetrators (the world saw the Quran burn [there are a whole bunch of different Qurans burning online as we speak] but only a small group in Afghanistan cared)?

Again, the pastor shouldn't throw stones...

meh, his sin is immaterial in comparison to the heresy of Islam.

I'm not blaming society for anything. I am blaming the pastor. The pastor is insulting and provoking the Muslims at a time when relations are icy at best. There is a fear among the Islamic community at large that the Christian west is trying to subjugate them, and when you see people like the pastor you begin to understand why.

yet huge swaths of western hating and internet connected Muslim populaces sat at home and hurt no one the day the pastor burnt the Quran; except for a small group in Afghanistan. what was the difference? individuals over there encouraged violent action, and people took violent action.
who knows how many Muslims saw and felt insulted/revolted when they saw the pastor burn the Quran but only a small group in Afghanistan did anything. that should say something about who is culpable.

At 5/2/11 09:28 PM, Camarohusky wrote: It's better because it is showing many of the people that what he did was wrong on numerous levels. That just because some is an atheist doesn't mean that religious people's view and feelings are automatically BS.

ffs; a Christian pastor also assumed that everyone else's beliefs were BS because of his faith. does that make his faith wrong? does that make the Muslim faith wrong? no, it makes the pastor a dick and the fanatics that attacked the UN employees murderous dicks.

I'll just say that killing people and burning down embassies for a burnt book is fucking retarded. Some muslims need to grow the fuck up.

At 5/3/11 10:28 AM, morefngdbs wrote: I would once again like to clear up the misunderstanding that I am an Atheist.
I am not.
What I am is 150% against fucking religious morons, any religious moron & their twisted values & their religious beliefs. Because they're twisted & IMO completely outside the ideology of peaceful religious observation.
George Carlin said it best when he said " keep thy religion to thyself " as being what makes for a good religious person.

My apologies to that, then.

However...
In regards to other things said, people aren't weak for craving the control of a higher authority. They are simply a personality and lifestyle choice issues. I for one am atheist simply by virtue of wanting proof of greater things, and it pains me to say that because I deeply desire true faith, to cast off some of my burdens and know in my heart that a benevolent being of endless power will care for me.

At 5/4/11 12:53 AM, altanese-mistress wrote:

At 5/3/11 10:28 AM, morefngdbs wrote: I would once again like to clear up the misunderstanding that I am an Atheist.
I am not.

My apologies to that, then.

;;;
no problem, I enjoy reading your posts, even though we have....often opposing views.

However...
In regards to other things said, people aren't weak for craving the control of a higher authority.

;;;
The weakness I meant, may not be how I came across.
Religion is IMO about the worst thing that can happen to devine belief. IT always is 'open to interpretation', it gets written down, dogma then over rules common sense (always in short supply IMO), over time ,changes get implemented
That's the man made problem, & it is exactly why religion is flawed. Their religious texts the so called 'holy books' , are no more holy than my socks are. They are mankind written, mankind edited, & the messages are bent &/or twisted to fit the needs of the controlers/abusers of said religious group.

Even my own mother fools herself & admits it when pushed. It always , absolutely ALWAYS comes down to faith. THat-quote, my mum- " there are inconsistencies in what we are taught & what is written, or has been changed from one version of the bible over another. But faith overcomes that."

I respectfully disagree, if its flawed...worshipping, & going along with it is then basicly flawed.
Now I'm not going to try and argue about 'faith' ,but my views on this Pastor burning his own copy of the Koran, while petty & IMO childish, is still his right to do. What ever his intent, & I can agree he was at the least definately trying to spark controversy, it wasn't illegal.

I would like to mention Sollnvictus's comment where he said " internet connected Muslim populaces sat home & did nothing ,hurt no one "
Millions of Muslims did nothing.
This is exactly how they should react IMO, if you are truely a Muslim & go by their 'peaceful religious' claims. Be upset & hurt...absolutely, this dick puposely did a deliberate act of petty hurtfulness. But he was within his rights to do so & the Afghans who murdered those innocent Westerners were grossly in the wrong.
I cannot even fathom ,how you can try to equate the 2 as being , the burning of the book is responsible of the murder of innocents....no its not. Fanaticism, twisted religious doctrine, an ideology of pure hate, thats what is responsible for the murders.

At 5/4/11 09:31 AM, morefngdbs wrote: What ever his intent, & I can agree he was at the least definately trying to spark controversy, it wasn't illegal.

No one here, even the person who has fought the hardest to place some sort of blame upon him, (me) would say his acts were illegal. If this came to court, in my jurisdiction and I was able, I would defend this guy pro bono. Even under the broadest hate speech laws in the US this would not be criminal.

Be upset & hurt...absolutely, this dick puposely did a deliberate act of petty hurtfulness.

I think we can all agree he was wrong in the fact that he was a dick and deliberate hurt people.

I cannot even fathom ,how you can try to equate the 2 as being , the burning of the book is responsible of the murder of innocents....no its not.

I believe it was the timing, the intent, and the show he made of it. I do agree it is a stretch, but this is what I saw in his actions, and that is why I hold him as responsible. We can agree to disagree.