DWOC's International Burn a Koran Day

[JoeRedskin]

“I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Voltaire

The pastor, misdirected as I believe him to be, is making a political statement by his book burning. As long as he does so in an otherwise legal manner, he is allowed to make his statement of hate and, although we may disagree with it, we as Americans should defend his right to make that statement. Further, we should do so in a manner that clearly indicates that violence in response to hateful speech is just as wrong as the initial hateful speech.

One of the things I find upsetting about the response to this hateful speech is the lack of condemnation, by the Islamic community, of the notion that violence is in any way an appropriate response to this idiot’s actions. There are any number of responses which leading Muslim clerics could endorse as a response – ranging from calling the faithful to reach out to peaceful Christians and to hold joint rally’s for Christian & Muslims, to sermons on how these actions perpetuate a message of hate that is antithetical to Muslims and Christians, or even to burning Bibles. All of these are attempts to combat hateful speech with additional speech.

Yet, what I hear is not, “Muslims, it is a sin against Allah to respond with violence or hatred to this fool’s actions” or “Those who react with violence are condemned before the eyes of Allah”. Instead, the response seems to be, at best, “We can’t promise that any Christian will be safe from radical Muslim fundamentalists who are offended by this action.”

Let me be clear – I think DWOC’s action is contrary to God’s word and to the tenets of Christianity. DWOC’s actions are a perpetuation of hatred and encourage faithful and unfaithful alike to separate themselves from the truth and beauty that is God. As such, his actions are sinful and lead people to damnation.

With that said, a physically violent, destructive response to hateful speech has the same results.

The way to combat hateful speech is with additional speech and let the truth will out. Instead, there appears (to me anyway) to be a toleration, by the larger Islamic community as a whole, of the violent response proposed by a minority to disliked speech. Toleration may be too strong. Rather, it's seems to be a shrug "Yeah, we don't agree with radical Muslims and physical violence is wrong, but what can you do about it". I have not heard one Muslim cleric assert that, no matter how reprehensible the idea is, this idiot has the right to burn these books. Have I missed that?

Two wrongs do not make a right and the second wrong should be condemned just as strongly as the first (particularly where the threat of physical injury is being made). I may have missed it, but I simply haven’t seen the Islamic religious leaders step forth, defend DWOC's right to do this, and loudly condemn a violent response to this proposed action.

I hope and pray that the idiot does not burn these Holy Books. I also hope and pray that any response to his hateful speech does not perpetuate the cycle of hate.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

“I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Voltaire

The pastor, misdirected as I believe him to be, is making a political statement by his book burning. As long as he does so in an otherwise legal manner, he is allowed to make his statement of hate and, although we may disagree with it, we as Americans should defend his right to make that statement. Further, we should do so in a manner that clearly indicates that violence in response to hateful speech is just as wrong as the initial hateful speech.

One of the things I find upsetting about the response to this hateful speech is the lack of condemnation, by the Islamic community, of the notion that violence is in any way an appropriate response to this idiot’s actions. There are any number of responses which leading Muslim clerics could endorse as a response – ranging from calling the faithful to reach out to peaceful Christians and to hold joint rally’s for Christian & Muslims, to sermons on how these actions perpetuate a message of hate that is antithetical to Muslims and Christians, or even to burning Bibles. All of these are attempts to combat hateful speech with additional speech.

Yet, what I hear is not, “Muslims, it is a sin against Allah to respond with violence or hatred to this fool’s actions” or “Those who react with violence are condemned before the eyes of Allah”. Instead, the response seems to be, at best, “We can’t promise that any Christian will be safe from radical Muslim fundamentalists who are offended by this action.”

Let me be clear – I think DWOC’s action is contrary to God’s word and to the tenets of Christianity. DWOC’s actions are a perpetuation of hatred and encourage faithful and unfaithful alike to separate themselves from the truth and beauty that is God. As such, his actions are sinful and lead people to damnation.

With that said, a physically violent, destructive response to hateful speech has the same results.

The way to combat hateful speech is with additional speech and let the truth will out. Instead, there appears (to me anyway) to be a toleration, by the larger Islamic community as a whole, of the violent response proposed by a minority to disliked speech. Toleration may be too strong. Rather, it's seems to be a shrug "Yeah, we don't agree with radical Muslims and physical violence is wrong, but what can you do about it". I have not heard one Muslim cleric assert that, no matter how reprehensible the idea is, this idiot has the right to burn these books. Have I missed that?

Two wrongs do not make a right and the second wrong should be condemned just as strongly as the first (particularly where the threat of physical injury is being made). I may have missed it, but I simply haven’t seen the Islamic religious leaders step forth, defend DWOC's right to do this, and loudly condemn a violent response to this proposed action.

I hope and pray that the idiot does not burn these Holy Books. I also hope and pray that any response to his hateful speech does not perpetuate the cycle of hate.

I particularly agree here.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

“I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Voltaire

The pastor, misdirected as I believe him to be, is making a political statement by his book burning. As long as he does so in an otherwise legal manner, he is allowed to make his statement of hate and, although we may disagree with it, we as Americans should defend his right to make that statement. Further, we should do so in a manner that clearly indicates that violence in response to hateful speech is just as wrong as the initial hateful speech.

One of the things I find upsetting about the response to this hateful speech is the lack of condemnation, by the Islamic community, of the notion that violence is in any way an appropriate response to this idiot’s actions. There are any number of responses which leading Muslim clerics could endorse as a response – ranging from calling the faithful to reach out to peaceful Christians and to hold joint rally’s for Christian & Muslims, to sermons on how these actions perpetuate a message of hate that is antithetical to Muslims and Christians, or even to burning Bibles. All of these are attempts to combat hateful speech with additional speech.

Yet, what I hear is not, “Muslims, it is a sin against Allah to respond with violence or hatred to this fool’s actions” or “Those who react with violence are condemned before the eyes of Allah”. Instead, the response seems to be, at best, “We can’t promise that any Christian will be safe from radical Muslim fundamentalists who are offended by this action.”

Let me be clear – I think DWOC’s action is contrary to God’s word and to the tenets of Christianity. DWOC’s actions are a perpetuation of hatred and encourage faithful and unfaithful alike to separate themselves from the truth and beauty that is God. As such, his actions are sinful and lead people to damnation.

With that said, a physically violent, destructive response to hateful speech has the same results.

The way to combat hateful speech is with additional speech and let the truth will out. Instead, there appears (to me anyway) to be a toleration, by the larger Islamic community as a whole, of the violent response proposed by a minority to disliked speech. Toleration may be too strong. Rather, it's seems to be a shrug "Yeah, we don't agree with radical Muslims and physical violence is wrong, but what can you do about it". I have not heard one Muslim cleric assert that, no matter how reprehensible the idea is, this idiot has the right to burn these books. Have I missed that?

Two wrongs do not make a right and the second wrong should be condemned just as strongly as the first (particularly where the threat of physical injury is being made). I may have missed it, but I simply haven’t seen the Islamic religious leaders step forth, defend DWOC's right to do this, and loudly condemn a violent response to this proposed action.

I hope and pray that the idiot does not burn these Holy Books. I also hope and pray that any response to his hateful speech does not perpetuate the cycle of hate.

Here's one

Iraq's top Shiite cleric urges tolerance towards Christians - Monsters and Critics

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

“I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Voltaire

The pastor, misdirected as I believe him to be, is making a political statement by his book burning. As long as he does so in an otherwise legal manner, he is allowed to make his statement of hate and, although we may disagree with it, we as Americans should defend his right to make that statement. Further, we should do so in a manner that clearly indicates that violence in response to hateful speech is just as wrong as the initial hateful speech.

One of the things I find upsetting about the response to this hateful speech is the lack of condemnation, by the Islamic community, of the notion that violence is in any way an appropriate response to this idiot’s actions. There are any number of responses which leading Muslim clerics could endorse as a response – ranging from calling the faithful to reach out to peaceful Christians and to hold joint rally’s for Christian & Muslims, to sermons on how these actions perpetuate a message of hate that is antithetical to Muslims and Christians, or even to burning Bibles. All of these are attempts to combat hateful speech with additional speech.

Yet, what I hear is not, “Muslims, it is a sin against Allah to respond with violence or hatred to this fool’s actions” or “Those who react with violence are condemned before the eyes of Allah”. Instead, the response seems to be, at best, “We can’t promise that any Christian will be safe from radical Muslim fundamentalists who are offended by this action.”

Let me be clear – I think DWOC’s action is contrary to God’s word and to the tenets of Christianity. DWOC’s actions are a perpetuation of hatred and encourage faithful and unfaithful alike to separate themselves from the truth and beauty that is God. As such, his actions are sinful and lead people to damnation.

With that said, a physically violent, destructive response to hateful speech has the same results.

The way to combat hateful speech is with additional speech and let the truth will out. Instead, there appears (to me anyway) to be a toleration, by the larger Islamic community as a whole, of the violent response proposed by a minority to disliked speech. Toleration may be too strong. Rather, it's seems to be a shrug "Yeah, we don't agree with radical Muslims and physical violence is wrong, but what can you do about it". I have not heard one Muslim cleric assert that, no matter how reprehensible the idea is, this idiot has the right to burn these books. Have I missed that?

Two wrongs do not make a right and the second wrong should be condemned just as strongly as the first (particularly where the threat of physical injury is being made). I may have missed it, but I simply haven’t seen the Islamic religious leaders step forth, defend DWOC's right to do this, and loudly condemn a violent response to this proposed action.

I hope and pray that the idiot does not burn these Holy Books. I also hope and pray that any response to his hateful speech does not perpetuate the cycle of hate.

Muslims are indifferent to this pastor's well being because what he proposes to do is beyond vile (who in here cares what happens to Fred Phelps?). There are idiots out there talking about how they would respond to this pastor's action by attacking and Americans/Christians and I don't see Muslims being indifferent to this.

There will be one nut job out there that thinks he's going to get heaven credits with a violent act against this pastor. Best of luck to the pastor.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

Muslims are indifferent to this pastor's well being because what he proposes to do is beyond vile (who in here cares what happens to Fred Phelps?). There are idiots out there talking about how they would respond to this pastor's action by attacking and Americans/Christians and I don't see Muslims being indifferent to this.

There will be one nut job out there that thinks he's going to get heaven credits with a violent act against this pastor. Best of luck to the pastor.

In light of Iraq's top shiite cleric "urging restraint" by all Muslims, I suggest it is not just the pastor who need fear from a "nut job out there that thinks he's going to get heaven credits with a violent act."

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

In light of Iraq's top shiite cleric "urging restraint" by all Muslims, I suggest it is not just the pastor who need fear from a "nut job out there that thinks he's going to get heaven credits with a violent act."

What do you expect this Ayatollah to say? Unlike Christianity Islam and Judaism don't subscribe to turning the other cheek. In Islam one is expected to conduct himself/herself righteously towards others at all times.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

What do you expect this Ayatollah to say? Unlike Christianity Islam and Judaism don't subscribe to turning the other cheek. In Islam one is expected to conduct himself/herself righteously towards others at all times.

"others" would be read as "other Muslims", non-believers have a different set of rules.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

"others" would be read as "other Muslims", non-believers have a different set of rules.

If you're eying it from extremist angle, I suppose so. There's lots of room for improvement on the part of the Muslim world. The sad truth is people in the Muslim world take their own ineptitude and frustrations with their condition on people who are not like them. This has happened in the past, happens in the present, and will happen in the future. This is not a domain exclusive to Muslims either (see Kosovo).

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

What do you expect this Ayatollah to say? Unlike Christianity Islam and Judaism don't subscribe to turning the other cheek. In Islam one is expected to conduct himself/herself righteously towards others at all times.

I admit I am only a dilettante in Islamic theology and that, perhaps, the words spoken by the cleric resonate differently within an Islamic audience as opposed to a Christian one. Further, I admit to ignorance on Islam's stance as to the "turn the other cheek" tenet. Even if acting “righteously” is the Islamic standard, however, some Christian authors take the view that, when the Bible's "turn the other cheek" quotation is read in historical and textual context, it comes out much the same as conducting oneself "righteously".

Righteous personal conduct interpretation
There is a third school of thought in regard to th[e] passage ["turn the other cheek"]. Jesus was not changing the meaning of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" but restoring it to the original context. Jesus starts his statement with "you have heard it said" which means that he was clarifying a misconception, as opposed to "it is written" which would be a reference to scripture. The common misconception seems to be that people were using Exodus 21:24-25 (the guidelines for a magistrate to punish convicted offenders) as a justification for personal vengeance. In this context, the command to "turn the other cheek" would not be a command to allow someone to beat or rob a person, but a command not to take vengeance.

Turning the other cheek - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thus, if the Islamic standard is to act "righteously", and based on the fact that both early Islamic and Christian legal theory seem to be by culture and geography, fairly direct descendents from Hammurabic influences, I would expect the Imam to strongly condemn any vengeful response to the burning as being unrighteous vengeance that is repulsive to Allah and contrary to the Word of God.

Again, however, I plead ignorance of as to the Qu’ran’s specific teachings on what is considered “righteous” action toward others.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

Muslims are indifferent to this pastor's well being because what he proposes to do is beyond vile (who in here cares what happens to Fred Phelps?). There are idiots out there talking about how they would respond to this pastor's action by attacking and Americans/Christians and I don't see Muslims being indifferent to this.

There will be one nut job out there that thinks he's going to get heaven credits with a violent act against this pastor. Best of luck to the pastor.

In light of Iraq's top shiite cleric "urging restraint" by all Muslims, I suggest it is not just the pastor who need fear from a "nut job out there that thinks he's going to get heaven credits with a violent act."