First person killed because of Quran burning threat!

[Belk]

We are a silly people.

These dirty night shirts rampage about ANYTHING. They turn labels upside down and look at them in a mirror, then riot because it kinda sorta looks like allah.

Lets attack Lays potato chips, someone saw Jesus in one!

How stupid can we be?

Oh sure I agree that burning the book is a dumb idea, it will incite, and all that...no doubt.

Lets g'head and not burn it, lets build the mosque, and all that means is the other 9 million stupid reasons will have to be used for recruitment.

If we closed the prison, brought all troops home, and denounced Israel....do ya think its enough?

There IS NO enough.

Shame on us idiots

Wow! Seriously? While I disagree with blaming the pastor for the death I will not be associated with people who stoop to insulting posts such as this. A pox on both your houses.

/unsuscribe

 

[kermit]

Jones should be held respionsible as accomplice to murder!

I disagree. While Jones does bear some moral responsibilty the person who killed another is responsible for their own actions.

 

[whatbogsends]

If you lay a torch to a barrel of explosives, knowing full well that that barrel will go off, you are the cause for the explosion!

The pastor is, at best, indirectly responsible for this death. While i'm sure he knew (at least any reasonable person would know, so him knowing is purely conjecture) that the threat to burn the Koran would incite riots, and produce a reaction, those rioting and reacting are responsible for their own actions. No one forced them to riot, even if they have a legitimate issue to be angry about.

While i think the Pastor Jones is an idiot, and that his actions were thoughtless at best, hate-filled at worst, he is not, in any way, directly accountable for this death.

 

[kermit]

The sole responsibility for any deaths can be laid directly at the feet of the animals running around rioting and killing. The pastor does not shoulder even the slightest bit of the blame. To say he does is ludicrous at best. It's as foolish and as intellectually dishonest as saying the gun manufacturer is responsible for someone shooting you.

While I agree that he bears no legal responsiblity to say that he bears no responsibility is both intellectually dishonest and morally devoid. The fact is that this riot would not have happened if it were not for him and for that he bears some moral responsibility.

Your analogy of a gun manufacturer is not apt in this situation. A gun is a potential means to commit violence. Jones created a motivation to commit violence.

 

[Aimiel]

I believe the original OP is in error, since the one report of a death has been withdrawn and there are no news reports showing it to be true. With the world's attention focused on Gainesville, Florida, I'm sure if it did happen they'd have all picked up on it by now.

 

[reverend B]

the reaction to the pastors proposed "event" were entirely predictable by anyone that gives a cursory look at the news. a moral responsibility is a certainty. the legal responsibility could be argued.

the "thicker skin" argument is a poor one, as it looks at the reaction to the burning through western eyes. the provocation of burning the Qu'ran is not understood by us, anymore than the denmark cartoons are. we think of these as no big deal. theologically, the affront to islam by these actions is monstrous and culturally we just don't get it, but arrogantly presume we have the "correct" reaction to such things and thus they are crazy and thin-skinned. it is this same myopia that made us assume that the rest of the world wants to be us, so all we have to do is have a little war and countries will turn upside down and become forever grateful democratic republics. when they then vote in sharia law, we don't get it.

 

[reverend B]

We are a silly people.

These dirty night shirts rampage about ANYTHING. They turn labels upside down and look at them in a mirror, then riot because it kinda sorta looks like allah.

Lets attack Lays potato chips, someone saw Jesus in one!

How stupid can we be?

Oh sure I agree that burning the book is a dumb idea, it will incite, and all that...no doubt.

Lets g'head and not burn it, lets build the mosque, and all that means is the other 9 million stupid reasons will have to be used for recruitment.

If we closed the prison, brought all troops home, and denounced Israel....do ya think its enough?

There IS NO enough.

Shame on us idiots

why, for trying to do the right thing instead of the expedient one?

 

[Rochir]

I believe the original OP is in error.

It has also been carried by the NYT! Why would you think the report is in error?

 

[blueapplepaste]

To an extent it does play into Jones hands. It's like kicking a dog, and getting mad when it bites you (I'm not saying Muslims are dogs, just an analogy). So he is intentionally provoking them and then can use this to say, "See, they're violent!"

That being said, this isn't his fault. He, and anyone, should be able to do and say as they will. If this is causing some radical Muslims to kill people, then they need to grow a thicker hide and deal with it.

You don't see Christians going berserk whenever Muslims claim Christianity is a false religion (at least not to the point of killing people).

 

[DesertSky]

It has also been carried by the NYT! Why would you think the report is in error?

Whether it's true or not, that rag has been known to make stuff up. Blaming the pastor is an excuse. He's a crackpot, but the blame lies squarely with whoever pulled the trigger. This "blame someone else for my actions" garbage is a worldwide epidemic.

 

[Aimiel]

It has also been carried by the NYT! Why would you think the report is in error?

Because, like I said, the one story I found earlier was removed, and I hadn't seen any new ones.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/world/asia/11afghan.html?_r=1&hp

 

[grasping the after wind]

the reaction to the pastors proposed "event" were entirely predictable by anyone that gives a cursory look at the news. a moral responsibility is a certainty. the legal responsibility could be argued.

the "thicker skin" argument is a poor one, as it looks at the reaction to the burning through western eyes. the provocation of burning the Qu'ran is not understood by us, anymore than the denmark cartoons are. we think of these as no big deal. theologically, the affront to islam by these actions is monstrous and culturally we just don't get it, but arrogantly presume we have the "correct" reaction to such things and thus they are crazy and thin-skinned. it is this same myopia that made us assume that the rest of the world wants to be us, so all we have to do is have a little war and countries will turn upside down and become forever grateful democratic republics. when they then vote in sharia law, we don't get it.

It must be akin to the myopia that allows the "community center" supporters to see it as no big deal etc.

 

[BoltNut]

the reaction to the pastors proposed "event" were entirely predictable by anyone that gives a cursory look at the news. a moral responsibility is a certainty. the legal responsibility could be argued.

the "thicker skin" argument is a poor one, as it looks at the reaction to the burning through western eyes. the provocation of burning the Qu'ran is not understood by us, anymore than the denmark cartoons are. we think of these as no big deal. theologically, the affront to islam by these actions is monstrous and culturally we just don't get it, but arrogantly presume we have the "correct" reaction to such things and thus they are crazy and thin-skinned. it is this same myopia that made us assume that the rest of the world wants to be us, so all we have to do is have a little war and countries will turn upside down and become forever grateful democratic republics. when they then vote in sharia law, we don't get it.

While I agree with the idea behind your post, I have to also ask why we in America must put aside our right to "protest" something because it offends. You are right about the foolishness, and short sighted actions of the Rev. Jones. You are right about the idea of Middle Eastern countries may not want a democracy and prefer Sharia. But do we forgo or surrender one of our most basic freedoms because someone in the world doesn't like it? This is a delicate balance. When you see some artist getting a grant from the federal government in order to put a crucifix in a jar of urine and call it "art", people protest. They don't go out and kill each other. A cartoonist draws a "likeness" of Mohammad and people get murdered and receive death threats. While we need to be more aware of the different cultures in our world, those cultures need to be aware and "understanding" of our own. This, unfortunately, does not happen. This is also why many in America see the issue with Rev. Jones and the New York "community center" in a similar light. Is it wrong of them to feel that way? The actions of both are ill-advised, but they are also both exercising their Constitutional rights. I don't like this any more than you do, but how far should we go and how many of our Constitutional rights should we forgo in order to appease a religion?

 

[reverend B]

It must be akin to the myopia that allows the "community center" supporters to see it as no big deal etc.

the difference being that culturally we frown on the response as reactionary and irresponsible if we react violently toward a perceived wrong. for them, this is an act of war against their faith. here, we accept that different faiths have different traditions. it's part of our law. you can protest all you like, but in the end the law allows the building of the islamic center, and in the end we will have to accept the decision the imam makes in regard to its construction. for muslims, it is not only the words of their book that is holy, but the very book itself.

for this particular observer, i neither support nor condemn the islamic center. i just don't care. it isn't at ground zero, can't be seen from there, and not making a big deal about it to me represents what america is all about. muslims died, too. what difference does it make what they build there? if it's legal, great. america can absorb and allow all kinds of people, or its whole purpose has withered and died. that building is a complete non-issue to me. the boycott of it or protest of it is simply a protest against my fellow americans.

 

[BoltNut]

the difference being that culturally we frown on the response as reactionary and irresponsible if we react violently toward a perceived wrong. for them, this is an act of war against their faith. here, we accept that different faiths have different traditions. it's part of our law. you can protest all you like, but in the end the law allows the building of the islamic center, and in the end we will have to accept the decision the imam makes in regard to its construction. for muslims, it is not only the words of their book that is holy, but the very book itself.

In Western Christian society, we see the Bible as Holy. The 'book' itself is simply a book. Do all Christians around the world see the Bible the same way? When someone burns a Bible here in America, are there Christians in the world that see this as a sacrilege? Probably. Islam sees the burning of the Koran as an "act of war" while in America it is seen as burning a book. Do Muslims consider our culture in regard to such an act? No. Do we change our society in order to appease a religion?

for this particular observer, i neither support nor condemn the islamic center. i just don't care. it isn't at ground zero, can't be seen from there, and not making a big deal about it to me represents what america is all about. muslims died, too. what difference does it make what they build there? if it's legal, great. america can absorb and allow all kinds of people, or its whole purpose has withered and died. that building is a complete non-issue to me. the boycott of it or protest of it is simply a protest against my fellow americans.

I feel much the same way about the ground zero project. I also feel the same way about the Rev. Jones and his little bonfire. Whether he is burning Korans, Bibles or just having a weenie roast, I don't care. It is his right to do what he wants. We can "absorb and allow all kinds of people". Islam, apparently, can not.

 

[reverend B]

While I agree with the idea behind your post, I have to also ask why we in America must put aside our right to "protest" something because it offends. You are right about the foolishness, and short sighted actions of the Rev. Jones. You are right about the idea of Middle Eastern countries may not want a democracy and prefer Sharia. But do we forgo or surrender one of our most basic freedoms because someone in the world doesn't like it? This is a delicate balance. When you see some artist getting a grant from the federal government in order to put a crucifix in a jar of urine and call it "art", people protest. They don't go out and kill each other. A cartoonist draws a "likeness" of Mohammad and people get murdered and receive death threats. While we need to be more aware of the different cultures in our world, those cultures need to be aware and "understanding" of our own. This, unfortunately, does not happen. This is also why many in America see the issue with Rev. Jones and the New York "community center" in a similar light. Is it wrong of them to feel that way? The actions of both are ill-advised, but they are also both exercising their Constitutional rights. I don't like this any more than you do, but how far should we go and how many of our Constitutional rights should we forgo in order to appease a religion?

i am not suggesting we forego any of our rights, but simply suggest that we exercise them wisely. if we know what the result of our actions will be, regardless of how rational we consider those results to be, we must consider them. we can not control how others will apply their understanding, so that really isn't relevant to what i do, unless we make the case that our wrongs are justified by previous ones done to us.

what is critical in this case, i think, is realizing you have all the right in the world to put your own life in danger, but you making a decision that puts the life of your unknown countrymen in danger has to be given serious consideration. whether what puts their life in danger is rational or not is intellectually interesting, but in the end probably not that satisfying to a grieving family.

i don't see this as appeasing a religion. i see it as a complete disconnect between cultures. we also don't understand suicide bombers, because we see the individual as the highest form. the individual is nothing in cultures where millions of them die from things we can't understand. malaria, starvation, exposure, dyssentary, etc. life is cheap elsewhere, but faith is not. it is a complete life devotion. few of us live that way in the west, and can not understand it.

 

[eldermike]

Did anyone else notice how quickly the constitutional lectures ended when this pastor said he was going to burn a book?

 

[MyRightEye]

the difference being that culturally we frown on the response as reactionary and irresponsible if we react violently toward a perceived wrong. for them, this is an act of war against their faith. here, we accept that different faiths have different traditions. it's part of our law. you can protest all you like, but in the end the law allows the building of the islamic center, and in the end we will have to accept the decision the imam makes in regard to its construction. for muslims, it is not only the words of their book that is holy, but the very book itself.

for this particular observer, i neither support nor condemn the islamic center. i just don't care. it isn't at ground zero, can't be seen from there, and not making a big deal about it to me represents what america is all about. muslims died, too. what difference does it make what they build there? if it's legal, great. america can absorb and allow all kinds of people, or its whole purpose has withered and died. that building is a complete non-issue to me. the boycott of it or protest of it is simply a protest against my fellow americans.

For the most part, I agree. Where I disagree is a nuance. If the Korans that are (going) to be burned are of historical value, like something printed over 200 years ago (or they are stolen from a muslim parocial school) . . . I can see a problem with burning them. If they are copies pastor dude bought at Barnes and Noble or ordered through Amazon.com . . . not so much. As Americans I believe we have to allow/support the right of the Muslims to use private funds to build a religious building on private property . . . . we also have to defend/support pastors who burn privately owned paper products on private property for religious reasons. 1A is 1A is 1A . . . if folks overseas have a problem with our 1A, well. . . . they are welcome to try a stand up fight.

 

[SOAD]

Did anyone else notice how quickly the constitutional lectures ended when this pastor said he was going to burn a book?

No. people here said he has the right. Please point to those here who said he did not have the right to burn korans.

 

[reverend B]

In Western Christian society, we see the Bible as Holy. The 'book' itself is simply a book. Do all Christians around the world see the Bible the same way? When someone burns a Bible here in America, are there Christians in the world that see this as a sacrilege? Probably. Islam sees the burning of the Koran as an "act of war" while in America it is seen as burning a book. Do Muslims consider our culture in regard to such an act? No. Do we change our society in order to appease a religion?



I feel much the same way about the ground zero project. I also feel the same way about the Rev. Jones and his little bonfire. Whether he is burning Korans, Bibles or just having a weenie roast, I don't care. It is his right to do what he wants. We can "absorb and allow all kinds of people". Islam, apparently, can not.

putting the jabs aside, lets assume that to be true. if we know that, how does it then inform our responses and choices? that's why i care about the Qu'ran burning, and not so much about the islamic center. it's the difference between the cultures reacting to these to events. we don't control the reaction to the book burning, but do control the reaction to the islamic center. shall we aspire to a more mature reaction? i hope so.