US Koran burning pretext for 20 UN deaths in Afghanistan (solutions, myth, status)

[Strel]

Originally Posted by oz in SC

I cannot support a radical ideology and still be a moderate....it just doesn't work.

This conclusion is based on a faulty premise, that there are no moderate muslims.

That's not factual.

I may think of myself as moderate,but supporting supporting a radical cause makes me a radical,albeit a radical not willing to actually do much.

Then you would not be a moderate.

Moderate muslims exist, and in significant numbers. Your premise is flawed.

[Darkatt]

Originally Posted by Goodnight

I guess Jones accomplshed his mission. I wonder if he had a relative that was killed in the riots, would he have thought differently about his actions.

"We cannot see the difference between that man in Florida and the American soldiers here," said Karimullah, a 25-year-old religious student who, like many Afghans, goes by one name and took part in Sunday's Kandahar protests. "They are killing our people here while in the U.S. they burn the Holy Quran. America just wants to humiliate the Muslim world."

Petraeus Says Quran Burning Endangers War Effort - WSJ.com

The problem is that they see no difference. It has to do with either a lack of brains, or a lack of cognizant thought. You either CANNOT see the difference, or don't WANT to see the difference, either way, this inability to think for one's self, and comprehend is what sets us reasoning people apart from these cro magnon throwbacks.

[Strel]

Originally Posted by oz in SC

Yup....

You cannot appease or satisfy those who do not believe in the same values as you....you can be used by them to further their cause but they care nothing for western principles.

This is EXACTLY the kind of thinking that the Muslim radicals engage in and use to justify their actions.

It's illogical and wrong.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Strel

This is EXACTLY the kind of thinking that the Muslim radicals engage in and use to justify their actions.

It's illogical and wrong.

Is it? I've been trying to convince you of a lot of things for quite awhile on this board but you continue to think illogically.

[Strel]

Originally Posted by GlockUnderMyKilt

When the debate veers off into correcting spelling errors and legalistic nitpicking about intent, that's the surest sign it's going nowhere.

Words have meaning, and should be chosen carefully.

But I'll take this thread and try to spin it into something more substantive.

First, I've not accused you of loving muslim terrorists, but I do accuse you of having a dangerously ambivalent attitude to our fundamental rights.

Perhaps you have not, but many here do make this argument. You are also wholly incorrect in assuming - contrary to what I have actually written - that I wouldn't scream bloody murder if the government tried to sanction this man.

Because I would, and unlike the majority of the posters in this thread I'm willing to bet, have actually put my money where my mouth is in real life.

So perhaps you are not accusing me of sympathy for the Muslim radicals, but you are falsely accusing me of wavering on the First Amendment - because nothing I have posted has contradicted any commitment to free speech. Freedom of speech applies only to the relationship between people and the government, not between each other.

So you're just dead wrong in that regard, and assigning positions to your opponent that they are not taking. That's straw man argument, just as accusing people of sympathy for the Muslim radicals is.

You suggest that our right to express an opinion is circumscribed by ethical and intentional boundaries.

When isn't it? When someone has no personal ethics, as this pastor evidently does not?

So where does that put those who question any establishment? What about George Carlin (peace be upon him) or Frankie Boyle? Certainly their art is all about intentionally insulting religious sensibilities.

And I would never argue that the government should censor or sanction them for it. But private citizens certainly have the right to express their outrage at the choices someone makes that can have an affect on the lives of others. In this case, this pastor had to know that his actions, chosen from a range of possible actions, would result in the deaths of innocent people.

And he chose to do it anyway. That he is protected by the First Amendment makes his choice no less evil, unethical and wrong.

Why you people have a problem understanding this concept is a mystery to me.

Would you call them unethical? Would the "smart thing to do" be to stick to fart jokes, or is the restriction on religious insult limited only to Islam?

Depends on the circumstances, as it always does. In this circumstance, the pastor knew full well that innocent people would be killed, was asked (not ordered) by our government to please find a less inflammatory means to express his opinion, and in spite of all this, he chose as he did.

That is unethical and immoral, and I have grave doubts about the character and sanity of anyone that does not see it that way. You cannot ignore the specific context under which this happened, which does not apply to your examples.

And what of intent? So Rushdie is allowed to incide murderous rage because his intent was to create a good story? And what do you know about his intent that the rest of us don't?

Rushdie was threatened with death himself. Again, different circumstances. Did Rushdie write what he did in the context of a "war" more or less that was already going on, after being begged by the military to not put lives at risk?

Was he in that circumstance? Was he given those choices?

I've seen interviews with Rushdie in which he expressed his surprise that his writing caused the furor that it did. So clearly he was not in the same position as this redneck faux Christian.

So we have Pastor Jones. It makes no difference who he is or what he does, as an American it's his right to nonviolently express his opinion.

I am beginning to wonder when you are going to realize that we aren't disputing that. It's a straw man argument at this point.

In fact, those of us who subscribe to Natural Law insist that every human being has this right. Ethics and intent absolutely do not change that.

They also do not absolve him of responsibility, which is the point you seem very keen to not get.

Freedom of expression is the greatest fruit of the Enlightenment, and I don't have to tell you that Enlightenment values have created the greatest advances in human happiness and well-being in history. But that was only possible because at long last people were able to question, criticize, and yes, insult the Catholic Church. The result? The Church was proven to be both fallible and durable. No longer was the West held back by dogma, and people were able to live their faith as free men. In fact, that most Christian sects have adopted Enlightenment Values as their own is the greatest demonstration of how thorough the victory of Reason has been.

That's nice. Why don't you direct this argument to someone that disagrees with it, instead of using it as a straw man in an argument with someone that does?

I don't have to agree with his actions or approve them to take up his free speech case. They are two separate issues. Why can you not see this?

The ACLU defends the KKK, does that mean they agree with the message, or does it mean that they are merely defending the right?

This is a distinction that I am not certain you grasp.

I argue in favour of Pastor Jones, not because I like to insult people or because he's an articulate guy, but Islam needs its own Enlightenment as well. God knows it's about time. This is why I'll say a thousand times "NO" to any suggestion that curtailing our right to express any idea we wish just to please a bunch of primitives will bring peace.

Inciting them to acts of violence is not an effective way to accomplish that goal. Some innocent people have to die so that you and Jones can make a political point?

Shame on him, and shame on you too.

Peace will come and Islamists will be marginalised when and if Muslims can come to terms with the fallibility of their own faith. That isn't going to happen by tiptoeing around their feelings, abandoning our values or by pointing a gun at them.

What you and Pastor ******* propose to do will not marginalize the radicals, it will radicalize the moderates.


It is stupid and wrong.

[Strel]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

Is it? I've been trying to convince you of a lot of things for quite awhile on this board but you continue to think illogically.

You are a stranger to logic, Calvinist.

Anyone that believes Adam and Eve literally existed and that nearly every scientist in the world is engaged in a Satanic conspiracy to deny a literal Genesis has no business lecturing anyone else on the application of logic.

[RCCCB]

Originally Posted by Strel

Words have meaning, and should be chosen carefully.




What you and Pastor ******* propose to do will not marginalize the radicals, it will radicalize the moderates.


It is stupid and wrong.

If moderates can be radicalized so simply then they were always radicals.

Now I have to get ready to go pee a picture of Mohammad on the pile of Korans sitting in the toilet, so EXCUSE me.

[Bulldawg82]

The world ought to make a "peace treaty" with the Jihadists - they stop burning other people's holy books, flags, people, etc and the rest of us will stop burning the Koran (I would never burn someone's holy book - but for the sake of argument). After all, there may be over a quarter of a million of them - but there are over 6 billion of us.

[Strel]

Originally Posted by RCCCB

If moderates can be radicalized so simply then they were always radicals.

Again with the stupid. binary, all-or-nothing approach to every issue in life.

The world must be a very simple and uninteresting place to people like you.

Is it really so hard for you to grasp that human beings don't fit neatly into the pigeonholes you create for them, let alone only two pigeonholes?

Now I have to get ready to go pee a picture of Mohammad on the pile of Korans sitting in the toilet, so EXCUSE me.

Have fun. It's nice to know people have productive hobbies.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Strel

You are a stranger to logic, Calvinist.

Anyone that believes Adam and Eve literally existed and that nearly every scientist in the world is engaged in a Satanic conspiracy to deny a literal Genesis has no business lecturing anyone else on the application of logic.

That would be called the genetic fallacy, or ad hominem. You believe that anyone that believes in the Bible is wrong automatically.

You might also say that you're guilty of begging the question, as you automatically assume that it is false, with no actual proof.

You also set up a strawman argument of what I actually believe. I don't believe in some massive conspiracy involving all scientists. I realize a lot of scientists do believe in a creator. Many don't. Unfortunately, the status quo in this country makes it almost impossible for any scientist to openly question the sacred cow of evolution.

You're like most atheists, in that you have way of proving your negative assertion, but that doesn't stop you from making your emotional arguments.