The recent conflict between Muslim and Christian ideologies in America

The most recent dispute between Christian and Muslim ideologies in America has boiled down to two debates. Whether the Muslims can build a Mosque at ground zero, and whether the Christians can burn the Muslims holy book.

The best possible outcome of these two debates for the American people is the one in which an Islam cultural center is built near ground zero, and the Qu'rans are burnt in Florida. Why? Because these outcomes allow Americans to express their freedom to practice religion and to express their freedom of speech.

Unfortunately, due to recent developments, the Qu'ran burning has been canceled, and it looks like the ground zero Islamic Culture Center may be built in a different location.

In my opinion, this is an unfortunate development in the amount of personal freedom the American people enjoy. The fact that politicians, business people and citizens weren't lining up to protect the rights of American citizens is a tragedy.

The only outcomes now are the ones in which the Muslim ideology wins out, and the one where the American people lose. I don't think this is a religious issue, but a sociopolitical issue.

Freedom is my religion and I support the building of the ground zero mosque and burn a Qu'ran day.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20015998-504083.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local...e_with_gov_paterson_has_no_strong_feelin.html

 

Pointed it out before but I support burnbthe newspaper day for creating this situation. The whole mosque at ground zero thing is a literal non issue, for one it's not at ground zero, for two it's not a mosque.

We should have a non denominational burn a journalist holiday.

 

It shouldnt be forbidden to burn a book, its just not a nice thing to do, whether its a bible or a koran! I'd condemn it, I just wouldnt forbid it. As you said, its free speech.

 

Imam Rauf has said, repeatedly and publicly, that he's not moving Park51. The Florida preacher's statement that he reached an agreement with Rauf to move it is nothing more than a lie.

Besides, the "ground zero mosque" is not a mosque and it's not at Ground Zero. It's a Sufi community center several blocks away, across the street from a strip club.

 

I edited my post for better accuracy.

 

There is a fine line (sometimes not so fine) between freedom of speech and hate speech.

I support the right to build an Islamic Center in lower Manhattan, even though I don't agree with the location.

I don't support the burning of the Qur'an.
I don't support the burning of the Bible.
I don't support the burning of the Torah.
I don't support the burning of any religious text that's protected under our constitution.

I don't think "I will burn the Qur'an because I can" is a good enough reason. What we're supporting here is the right to go against the right of religious freedom. It doesn't make any sense. I think if Jones had the power, there wouldn't be any Muslims left in the U.S.

Not just Muslims...

It's getting too ridiculous, the whole situation.

 

Wow you are so off base here it isn't even funny.

So what you're saying is, there's freedom of speech and there's freedom of speech. So then, why don't you tell us how we're going to legislate that.

So you don't support building an Islamic center close to the site of a (possibly) Islamic terror attack?

Do you support the burning of a religious text that ISN'T protected under our constitution?

People have the god given RIGHT to burn religious texts or patriotic icons or whatever they want to set on fire. Don't believe me? Go hit up the Gideons and light up a bible in your back yard. You can DO that.

Only other men have the power to take away our right to burn object x.

No no no no no. Burning a religious text isn't infringing on anyone's religious freedom. They can burn a whole stack of Korans. They can start a Koran factory and a furnace and burn those bitches ALL DAY LONG, and it won't infringe upon your right, or anyone else's right to practice Islam. Now, if the government was collecting Korans by force and burning them, that would be infringing on peoples right to religious freedom. If pastor handlebars was roving the country in the Jesus wagon robbing old Muslim ladies of their Family Koran and using it to smoke a pork butt, that would be infringing on peoples right to religious freedom.

 

It may not infringe upon people's rights, but its f-ing stupid. It makes the US look like a bunch of savages, will create a f'd up atmosphere in Afghanistan and Iraq as it is already a recruiting tool for AQI, AQA, and the Talibs.

I whole heartedly agree with a burning newspaper day. This is a guy with a small, insignificant, congregation. The only reason we are even speaking of it is because the news agencies can't help themselves. General Petraeus literally called this guy and asked him not to burn these books because it was already creating issues in AF.

 

I think comparing Imam Rauf to this guy, as if they're opposite sides of the same coin, is absurd. Deliberately or not, I think the original post does that. But Rauf is a moderate guy who is trying to preach coexistence. The only "offensive" thing about him is that some people are offended at the very sight of Muslims.

Book-burning of a distrusted religious minority though...anyone who doesn't get the implied threat in such an act doesn't know much about 1930s Germany. I think there's a difference between committing heresy and threatening a vulnerable minority, and I think this crossed that line.

I normally support the legality of highly-offensive speech. I had no objection to Serrano's "pee-pee Christ" (not its real name, but the real name violates the TOS), and I had no objection to "Everybody Draw Muhammad" day. But I think this Qur'an burning is different for two reasons, one minor, one major.

(1) The fire marshal was against it because the bonfire was a public safety hazard. The church had never successfully obtained a permit for a large-scale public bonfire, and they weren't going to. Thus, their ceremony was going to be illegal.

(2) As President Obama put it, this bonfire would be a "recruitment bonanza for al-Qaeda." According to Gen. Patraeus, US servicepeople would be killed in Afghanistan as a direct result of this. The fact is, we're currently involved in a war, and the #1 issue in that war is whether the Afghan people think we're there to fight terrorists or we're there because we're at war with Islam as a whole. Given the Holocaust connotations of a book burning, this event would be a HUGE propaganda victory for the enemies in a war we're fighting. Regardless of what the church organizer intended, his actions would directly result in aid and comfort to the enemy in a war we're currently fighting. There's got to be a point where the government has a legitimate interest to step in to save the lives of servicepeople. I'm not sure if this event was on that line, but it was getting close to it in my opinion.

 

First, please don't insult my religious text. I'm asking you.

So I take it that you're a supporter of hate speech.

I said I support the right. I don't like the choice of the location.

Is there any religious texts not protected by our constitution? You're reading too much into my post.

Let's all be disrespectful to one another. I can be disrespectful to you, it's my right, but it doesn't make it a smart choice.

Supporting stupidity is never a good idea, dotcha think?

 

Muslims abroad burn the US flag. Pastor Jones and his congregation burn the Koran.

Seems like they're tied even to me.

 

You can of course request that he doesn't, but you accept that passing a law forbidden such an insult would be ludicrous, right?

I take it that you don't understand what constitutes hate speech. Just cos you don't like it, doesn't make it hate speech, not even close. Burning the Qu'ran is not hate speech, burning the American flag is not hate speech, burning the Bible is not hate speech.

 

But that doesn't make either side any less wrong for doing it.

 

No, I'm a supporter of free speech. What I'm asking you is, how do you draw the line, legally?

Fair enough.

The constitution states that the government will make no laws governing religion. That's different from protecting religion.

 

I support building a religious building built on private land, though for the record it doesn't look like anything is going to be built at Ground Zero there for a long time anyway.

I don't support the deliberate burning of books as a symbol of hate whether it's the Qu'ran, the Bible, Mein Kampf or Twilight.

 

If Pastor Jone's really was so patriotic he'd have been with the army in Afghanistan actually fighting the Taliban and the real terrorists, instead of sitting comfortably at home having a bonfire of religious texts.

US security forces have already said that this could endanger the lives of innocent Americans abroad and most US embassies in sensitive area's have already begun taking security precautions and there's a strong chance of terrorist attack in retaliation to this.

Also can you imagine how big a recruitment drive this would be for the taliban? I can already imagine taliban commander's going into tribal area's screaming on loudspeakers
"OMG the american infidel's are burning Koran's!!! we must kill them all, join up now!!"
Also

Personally I don't agree, I myself am an atheist and think most religious books are nothing more than rather creative story books, however that doesn't mean I should make a bon fire out of them should I? even if I can. also this quran burning thing is illogical, it's just going to provoke more attack's and probably lead to some innocent people getting killed.

 

Considering Jones is way above the max recruitment age, how do you figure he'd be able to enlist and go fight Terry Taliban in the 'Stan?

 

You're confusing could with should. No one is saying he should burn the books, only that the law says that he could.

 

I'm sure he could find a better way to contribute positively to the war on terror than burning books and endangering the lives of innocent people in sensitive regions and helping the taliban ramp up their recruitment drives (seriously, whose side is this guy on again?)
Also I'm sure there must be people in his congregation who are eligible to join but have chosen not to.

fair enough I guess the law does confer upon people the right to act like brain dead morons, but at what point does freedom of speech cross over to discrimination,hate speech and bigotry? Also this is going to do nothing but increase tension abroad and as i've said before get some innocent guy killed. perhaps the good pastor should think of all the Americans who aren't in america before making a move?

 

Didn't say it does.

What do you call a guy who burns a book in the name of hate? A tool.

What do you call a guy who burns a flag in the name of hate but demands no-one burns his favourite book? A tool with double standards.