[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

As am I BadKosh, as am I.

We cannot, however, throw the baby out with the bathwater by dismissing all dissenting viewpoints. For every hyteckit spouting whatever it is he's trying to say there are three more quiet votes that listen to the arguments as presented. We cannot chase the elusive "gotcha" moment where we can objectively, unequivocally prove the "other side" wrong. The best we can do is use patience and tolerance to gradually influence those who do not see things the way we do. In practice, it is much more persuasive to be tolerant (as intolerant as they may be) and show them that yes, on paper, socialism and progressivism is the most compassionate political doctrine but that in practice, it is the exact opposite - simply because humans are humans. As it relates to this particular topic, the pastor's position is *morally* indefensible. The only thing he has is the legal right to do what he's proposing to do.

Don't give up just yet. Its a long fight ahead but remember that the loudest political voices are often the ones serving their own interests - and this country knows better. Cooler heads will prevail...eventually and not before some adversity.

Well said... I would add that the loud folk (Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, etc.) are also the people that many reasonable and intelligent people are quick to dismiss.

I will add though that very few people in this country are for socialism, certainly nobody on this board that I'm aware of.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Well said... I would add that the loud folk (Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, etc.) are also the people that many reasonable and intelligent people are quick to dismiss.

Agreed. They do not express themselves in a way thats accessible to anyone but those that already agree with them.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

All I've heard from my contemporaries and those in our leadership (denominationally speaking) is one rebuke after another for what this pastor is doing.

Here's the thing: Who cares? I understand the intent of the thread, I just find it completely unnecessary. Anyone of sound mind can identify that this is a wacko and not some "representative" of the Christian faith (small or large).

This is why I take issue with all those that wish to use 9/11 as an opportunity to paint the entire Muslim religion. If things were as bad as they believe, wouldn't the whole of Iraq and Afghanistan have risen up to smite us invaders?

A world where I have to worry about condemning every person similar to me for doing anything I disagree with is not any better than a PC world.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

A world where I have to worry about condemning every person similar to me for doing anything I disagree with is not any better than a PC world.

It is a PC world.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Here's the thing: Who cares? I understand the intent of the thread, I just find it completely unnecessary. Anyone of sound mind can identify that this is a wacko and not some "representative" of the Christian faith (small or large).

This is why I take issue with all those that wish to use 9/11 as an opportunity to paint the entire Muslim religion. If things were as bad as they believe, wouldn't the whole of Iraq and Afghanistan have risen up to smite us invaders?

A world where I have to worry about condemning every person similar to me for doing anything I disagree with is not any better than a PC world.

Well said, and more concise than my attempt too

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Agreed. They do not express themselves in a way thats accessible to anyone but those that already agree with them.

Looks like you responded before my second comment was added:

I will add though that very few people in this country are for socialism, certainly nobody on this board that I'm aware of.

I get your point though, this is just nitpicking. It is very difficult to remember at times that moderates (relatively speaking) do make up the political majority.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

It is a PC world.

Fight the power.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

A good buddy of mine was in Sydney, Australia during 9/11. He was at a bar when they started showing the twin towers smoking and then going down. He said that people at the bar started cheering and hollering during this time.

True story. This is Australia. I don't think the other people in the bar were Muslims, either.

greg

I guess losers hang out in bars Down Unda, too.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by finboy 

I guess losers hang out in bars Down Unda, too.

Agreed - but I guess my point was that it wasn't just <insert entire race/religion/creed/geographic location/etc.> doing the celebrating.

greg

[Doofy]

Hey, churchies... ...idea. And you've got two days to organise it.

Have a get together on the 11th, invite the press. Burn some Bibles.
That'll confuse everyone. Think about it. Yes, I am a genius.

[el chupacabra]

… .

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I see a huge difference.

By our own US (and Western) standards, cartoons and literature are an accepted and long-standing tradition of free speech and criticism.

Burning things has NEVER been an accepted tradition of criticism in the US, nor Western countries. Almost universally, burning things is a very low, attention seeking form of criticism, which is more known from oppresive regimes.

-t

How about throwing tea into the Boston harbor ?

[Wiskedjak]

To those who support this burning ... do you *really* want Christians to be perceived in the same light as the people in this image?

[OldManMac]

As reprehensible as his proposed burning is, it is his right, as an American, to make himself look like a fool. You can't legislate intelligence.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

As reprehensible as his proposed burning is, it is his right, as an American, to make himself look like a fool. You can't legislate intelligence.

Why is burning the US flag not allowed (in the US) then ?

Personally, I think it's stupid to burn things, but I would allow burning flags as well.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

How about throwing tea into the Boston harbor ?

If you're British, you can't do it

-t

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Why is burning the US flag not allowed (in the US) then ?

It's still legal.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Why is burning the US flag not allowed (in the US) then ?

Personally, I think it's stupid to burn things, but I would allow burning flags as well.

-t

It's perfectly legal, as it should be. Just like this moron in Florida, some people don't understand the difference between a physical object and the ideas it represents.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

It is a PC world.

Actually, the lefties are trying to make it such, but it isn't...yet. PC is a way to control the subject matter during discussions. It keeps the real issues from being discussed. We have an honest distrust of Muslims because of their actions. Muslims are being disproportionally discussed over other religions. I'm tired of Muslim this and Muslim that and their intrusion into western society as they try to change our laws and such, instead of integrating into our society. I'm sick of one-way tolerance. I'm sick of being intimidated by them and their violence and radical nature. Reminds me of the 1960's and the threats of riots unless......

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

It's perfectly legal, as it should be. Just like this moron in Florida, some people don't understand the difference between a physical object and the ideas it represents.

Yeah, you're right. Don't know why I thought it would be illegal.

It's not, as of yet.

Turns out, Congress has been trying since 1995 to make it illegal. I hope they don't succeeed.

-t

[BadKosh]

Errant thought....... If the idiot in Fla does burn the Korans,
and the Muslim radicals riot all over the world,
wouldn't that be a perfect time to send the predator drones
and wipe out those extremists?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Yeah, you're right. Don't know why I thought it would be illegal.

It's not, as of yet.

Turns out, Congress has been trying since 1995 to make it illegal. I hope they don't succeeed.

-t

Not often that we agree, and I don't think they'll succeed. In today's climate of increasing nationalism, it's hard to tell.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Errant thought....... If the idiot in Fla does burn the Korans,
and the Muslim radicals riot all over the world,
wouldn't that be a perfect time to send the predator drones
and wipe out those extremists?

I'd send a strong signal, and tons of drones...


... to Florida.

-t

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

We have an honest distrust of radicalMuslims because of their actions. RadicalMuslims are being disproportionally discussed over other religions. I'm tired of RadicalMuslim this and RadicalMuslim that and their intrusion into western society as they try to change our laws and such, instead of integrating into our society. I'm sick of one-way tolerance. I'm sick of being intimidated by them and their violence and radical nature. Reminds me of the 1960's and the threats of riots unless......

Fixed.

Please stop painting ALL muslims in the same light. There are *plenty* of Muslims that have integrated into our society. It is a minority of fundamentalist, radical muslims that are doing what you say they are doing. Why don't we see this in the media? Because it's uninteresting! The media, out for ratings, would rather show the small, vocal minority rather than the large, uninteresting minority.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Here's the thing: Who cares? I understand the intent of the thread, I just find it completely unnecessary. Anyone of sound mind can identify that this is a wacko and not some "representative" of the Christian faith (small or large).

That's the problem: not a lot of people who absolutely hate Christians are of a "sound mind." When I get into spiritual discussions with non-Christians, they inevitably bring up the nutjobs like this guy, and lump my church into roughly the same category. That alone is reason enough for me to start this thread, write up a blog post, post about it on Twitter/Facebook, and speak about it in our church (I've done all four).

This guy pastors a small church, but his 50 people are on all the major news networks now, and they've even gone inside their church and videoed them praying/worshipping/etc. We've never had news cameras inside of our church--not even local news.

This post by Wiskedjak describes what I'm worried about:

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

To those who support this burning ... do you *really* want Christians to be perceived in the same light as the people in this image?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

That's the problem: not a lot of people who absolutely hate Christians are of a "sound mind."

...but some how this people can be reasoned with if you condemn this? BS, they're going to paint things how they want to paint things.

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

When I get into spiritual discussions with non-Christians, they inevitably bring up the nutjobs like this guy, and lump my church into roughly the same category.

They sound unreasonable. Who cares. How is this any different then Westboro?

[besson3c]

I agree with Dakar. Who cares about the unreasonable...

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

...but some how this people can be reasoned with if you condemn this? BS, they're going to paint things how they want to paint things.

Many of them, yes. But it's usually a good thing to make it clear where I stand with these people.

If the Church doesn't make a point to distance itself from the nutjobs, then eventually it will all start bleeding together.

They sound unreasonable. Who cares. How is this any different then Westboro?

They don't protest soldiers funerals with signs that say "God hates fags," so I'm guessing they're not quite as hardcore. These people are slightly more legitimate, which makes this more irritating for sensible Christians.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

They don't protest soldiers funerals with signs that say "God hates fags," so I'm guessing they're not quite as hardcore. These people are slightly more legitimate, which makes this more irritating for sensible Christians.

FWIW, I'd put the Quran burning pastor in the same category as Westboro.

[Jawbone54]

That's strangely comforting...I think.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

If the Church doesn't make a point to distance itself from the nutjobs, then eventually it will all start bleeding together.

Tell me, do you guys also try to distance yourselves from televangelists? God knows they do a far better job of painting all US christians in one broad crazy stroke.

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

These people are slightly more legitimate, which makes this more irritating for sensible Christians.

That's logic I can buy into.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Tell me, do you guys also try to distance yourselves from televangelists? God knows they do a far better job of painting all US christians in one broad crazy stroke.

Yep.

Considering that my church is Pentecostal in every sense of the word, I'm willing to bet that if you guys were to watch one of our services online, you'd probably think we were a little crazy at first, but we don't operate out of hatred or fear, and we certainly don't operate with finances in mind.

We have a large church, but our pastor takes a very small salary. Most of our money goes into charitable works and missions projects. We're currently building a school in Nicaragua. These few aspects alone make us different from many televangelists.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Yep.

Considering that my church is Pentecostal in every sense of the word, I'm willing to bet that if you guys were to watch one of our services online, you'd probably think we were a little crazy at first, but we don't operate out of hatred or fear, and we certainly don't operate with finances in mind.

We have a large church, but our pastor takes a very small salary. Most of our money goes into charitable works and missions projects. We're currently building a school in Nicaragua. These few aspects alone make us different from many televangelists.

It's not even about the money. It's the gays caused Katrina/NYC sin caused 9/11 stuff.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It's not even about the money. It's the gays caused Katrina/NYC sin caused 9/11 stuff.

Ha...yeah, our pastor had a lot to say about that too.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Person Man 

Fixed.

Please stop painting ALL muslims in the same light. There are *plenty* of Muslims that have integrated into our society. It is a minority of fundamentalist, radical muslims that are doing what you say they are doing. Why don't we see this in the media? Because it's uninteresting! The media, out for ratings, would rather show the small, vocal minority rather than the large, uninteresting minority.

Except the moderates are at best a rumor. Where are they? What do they have to say about it? How do you assume to know what percentage of Muslims are radical and which are 'moderate'??

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

As reprehensible as his proposed burning is, it is his right, as an American, to make himself look like a fool. You can't legislate intelligence.

My point exactly, and i think the worse thing to do would be to make exceptions to that rule because the group being offended throws a bigger hissy-fit than others.

I agree the action is not admirable in any way. Maybe it's just cause ive been exposed to a lot of this kind of BS(against my group), and i've just developed a thick skin and couldnt be phased by this sort of thing.

It's just paper and ink, nd i for one think it's a waste of energy making such a big deal of it. Just because they throw a bigger hissy fit than other groups, i see no reason to pay more attention to such a insignificant thing.

This topic gets a huge 'MEH'...to the muslims being offended, i suggest they deal with issues more pertinent to their existence.

Cheers

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

My point exactly, and i think the worse thing to do would be to make exceptions to that rule because the group being offended throws a bigger hissy-fit than others.

No one is making exceptions. When was the last time you saw a flag burning in the US, either?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Except the moderates are at best a rumor. Where are they? What do they have to say about it? How do you assume to know what percentage of Muslims are radical and which are 'moderate'??

And how do you know?

Try to use a bit of common sense and basic mathematics here for once. There are over a billion Muslims in the world. At best there are several thousand Al-Qaeda and affiliated organizations with "radical" Muslims that are in physical conflict with the West. Even if one were to say there were 100K of them worldwide that still isn't even a drop in the freaking bucket! By any sensible measure the overwhelming, vast majority of Muslims in this world are going about their daily business like everybody else and don't give two sh*ts about "Western society". Jeez .... quit acting like such a !

OAW

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by OAW 

And how do you know?

Try to use a bit of common sense and basic mathematics here for once. There are over a billion Muslims in the world. At best there are several thousand Al-Qaeda and affiliated organizations with "radical" Muslims that are in physical conflict with the West. Even if one were to say there were 100K of them worldwide that still isn't even a drop in the freaking bucket! By any sensible measure the overwhelming, vast majority of Muslims in this world are going about their daily business like everybody else and don't give two sh*ts about "Western society". Jeez .... quit acting like such a !

OAW

Assumptions.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Assumptions.

Well if you can present actual evidence to the contrary then have at it. Until then ....

OAW

[sek929]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

We have an honest distrust of Muslims because of their actions. Muslims are being disproportionally discussed over other religions. I'm tired of Muslim this and Muslim that and their intrusion into western society as they try to change our laws and such

You do realize this same sentiment can be held by any number of people about any number of faiths?

Some people distrust Christianity, and think Christians are trying to force their beliefs into our laws. It's really no different, except that Muslim is the new 'in' religion to distrust.

Personally, I distrust any fervent follower of any religion who wants his personal faith to shape laws in this country.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Except the moderates are at best a rumor. Where are they? What do they have to say about it? How do you assume to know what percentage of Muslims are radical and which are 'moderate'??

Where do you expect to find them?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Assumptions.

So is your contention that the billions of Muslims wish violence upon us and are all radical? Use your head, this is common sense. If the billions of Muslims that existed all felt as strongly as the Al Queda, there would be no world order - at all.

[k2director]

Burning some holy books isn't the same thing as murdering thousands of office workers, hotel guests, bus riders, etc.

And the pastor is obviously making a point: if the left and the President can defend and embrace a mosque at Ground Zero on a strictly constitutional basis (because "freedom" is the "bedrock" of this country), then it must also defend/embrace the burning of a Koran.

But, of course, the left and our so-called "President" are not defending the burning of a Koran. Leave it to the left to be double-faced--ie, one day it insists that "tolerance" means accepting things that offend you (the mosque), but the next day it also insists that "tolerance" means restraining your own free expression because it might offend someone else.

That's not tolerance, it's hypocrisy.

Obama made a HUGE mistake coming out against the Koran burning. He wouldn't say whether he thought building a mosque at Ground Zero was the right thing to do, but he'll gladly condemn burning a Koran? People are going to see that hypocrisy, and it's going to hurt him. No wonder so many people think he's a Muslim. Maybe he is!

[besson3c]

*insert facepalm graphic here*

There is a difference between condemning motives vs. defending legal rights. Nobody is saying that the Quran burning pastor doesn't or shouldn't have a right to burn the Qurans, they are questioning/condemning his motives.

There is no evidence that the motives of the people that want to build a cultural center (notice I did not say "Mosque") near Ground Zero are not noble and admirable.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by k2director 

Obama made a HUGE mistake coming out against the Koran burning. He wouldn't say whether he thought building a mosque at Ground Zero was the right thing to do, but he'll gladly condemn burning a Koran? People are going to see that hypocrisy, and it's going to hurt him. No wonder so many people think he's a Muslim. Maybe he is!

If you consider building a place of worship and burning a religious text as equally offensive, there's no reasoning with you.

Oh, don't forget to throw General Petraeus in with the liberals.

[The Final Dakar]

BTW, the situation you're referring to is not hypocrisy, it's a double-standard. And one that doesn't exist, unless you can show me somewhere that Obama says that the loonies don't have a right to burn the koran.

[DeeKat]

only one comment....

http://www.****thesouth.com/

replace the **** with the 4 letter word...

[besson3c]

**** Jeff Goldblum.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by k2director 

Burning some holy books isn't the same thing as murdering thousands of office workers, hotel guests, bus riders, etc.

And the pastor is obviously making a point: if the left and the President can defend and embrace a mosque at Ground Zero on a strictly constitutional basis (because "freedom" is the "bedrock" of this country), then it must also defend/embrace the burning of a Koran.

But, of course, the left and our so-called "President" are not defending the burning of a Koran. Leave it to the left to be double-faced--ie, one day it insists that "tolerance" means accepting things that offend you (the mosque), but the next day it also insists that "tolerance" means restraining your own free expression because it might offend someone else.

That's not tolerance, it's hypocrisy.

Obama made a HUGE mistake coming out against the Koran burning. He wouldn't say whether he thought building a mosque at Ground Zero was the right thing to do, but he'll gladly condemn burning a Koran? People are going to see that hypocrisy, and it's going to hurt him. No wonder so many people think he's a Muslim. Maybe he is!

Wow, just wow.

What a undifferentiated and illogical view.

Maybe you shouldn't throw everything in the kitchen sink, run the garbage disposal, and then try to read anything into the results.

-t