Pastor Terry Burning Korans VS Ground Zero Mosque: Hypocricy is rampant

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I think book burning is disgusting. There is nothing that justifies it, despite being legal.

I think the mosque is legal but ill-considered. However, I think the verbiage used to oppose it is far worse than the presence of the mosque at ground zero.

In both cases, I think the vilification of an entire group of people is no less frightening than when i see that type of verbiage used against other groups of people including my own.

As I suspected you are consistant . This is why I defended you in the "flame Jillian" thread a week or so ago.

You don't think either one is a good idea, even if they are both legal. You find one more disturbing than the other, as do I, but feel both are bad ideas overall.

I think I agree with Jillian.

The one thing about the mosque is that it is constructive...though some may argue motives. There is a chance that some individuals will have their lives bettered through its creation.

The book burning is completely destructive. I cannot thing of anything positive that can come of it.

I think if it wasn't being built in such a controversial location with a controversial name the Cordoba center would indeed be constructive. However at its current location it is more divisive than constructive.

but like you said no matter where the books were burned that act only serves to be divisive and destructive.

 

[Hister]

They are both Fundamentalists of the First Order.

Now finally America, can you see what results from fundamentalist thinking? Lunacy, idiocy and instigation.

Fundamentalists in religion, in politics, in public morality should never have any attention paid to them. It only encourages this lunatic behavior.

"...It only encourages this lunatic behavior. "


"Let’s not, however, be fooled by the thinking that this act will incite Islamists in some special way. If Islamists did not have koran burnings to incite them to kill Americans, they would just find something else....

I think it is bad form for the military to start applying pressure to influence the political activities (and this is clearly a form of political speech) of American civilians. Petraeus is essentially attributing direct responsibility for American deaths to the activities of American citizens (and I hasten to point out that he made no similar public pronouncement about the activities of antiwar demonstrators who, at least arguably, caused American deaths by giving the jihadis reason to believe they could drive us out of Iraq given enough casualties).

Ultimately, this issue is not about tolerance of Islam, but about fear of Islam."


David Petraeus And The Koran Burnings | RedState

Why not? The military has its nose in 30 or 40 countries already, why not their own?

As for attributing the deaths to actions of merrucans, of course you have to, you elected GW Bush TWICE! After he had already invaded iraq for no reason other than oil.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The patented CON$ervative dumb act again!

Read this dishonesty:

The whiny assed leftie response. It's backed up - the Imam has suggested that violence may be the consequence of not building the mosque. So what? We are to be held hostage by a group of extremists? Maybe a cowardly whiny assed leftie, but not Americans.

It's those opposed to the mosque and want to burn Korans that are the cowards. They're so scared of Islam that they're willing to turn the entire religion against us to make themselves fell better. Cowardly and egocentric, IMHO.

You are not accurate. I'm not against building mosques however I am against the specific plan to build the Cordoba center in that close of proximity to ground zero. I am also against this guy, or anyone for that matter, burning korans or other holy books.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Timothy McVeigh was a Catholic.

But I doubt that there would be any national debate or uproar.

If a new Catholic Church was going to be built a couple of blocks from the site of the former Murrah building in OKC

Oh, seriously.... that's pathetic. McVeigh's bombing had nothing to do with Catholicism. It is pathetic - and insulting to the intellect of anyone with an IQ over 10 to pretend it did.

what about loons who bomb abortion clinics? or kill abortion doctors?

oh puleeze.... that has EVERYTHING to do with their religion. I wouldn't tar you with their brush though.

and just to bolster what i said before... would you say that General Petraeus "THREATENED" violence if books are burned?

or would you say that mischaracterizes things?

If a catholic pro life group bombed an abortion clinic and used their religious views to justify bombing it and killing innocent people I would totally be against them building a church right next to or on top of the bombed out property.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

...I think its a very insensitve action and I dont think he should be building the cordova center in that specific location. By doing so it is very insensitive and disrespectful to the feelings of the majority of americans.

It's only insensitive if you believe that the American Muslims trying to build over there are in some way connected to 9/11.

Which I guess you do.

70% of americans think they shouldn't build there. it has nothing to do with thinking they're connected to 9/11. that's silly. i don't think for a second anyone believes this imam and his group were connected to 9/11.

by the same token as it is inappropriate to lump all muslims together... it is also ignorant to pretend that 9/11 wasn't the result of islamic extremism.

Thank you again Jillian.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

It's only insensitive if you believe that the American Muslims trying to build over there are in some way connected to 9/11.

Which I guess you do.

70% of americans think they shouldn't build there. it has nothing to do with thinking they're connected to 9/11. that's silly.

70% of americans are making the link between 9/11 and this group of Muslims. If "Ground zero" has nothing to do with 9/11, that is news to me.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...roblem-with-ground-zero-mosque-perfectly.html

Check out that thread vader. Its my thread and you will see a lot of posts by me that will help you understand my position better than you appear to understand it from these posts of yours.

 

[shintao]

The Christians of America are not secure enough in their faith to pass moral judgment. Instead they cower in the corner and talk such nonsense at how tolerant they are through their religious faith. I notice the Muslim doesn't share this weakness, but goes straight to work in observance of his scriptures and dedication to his god.

The Christian weakness is not having the strength to turn to his Bible and follow their gods in a uniform way. They make excuses for the Old Testament, and cling to the old rugged cross for salvation in the New Testament. And when they do they lose track of the ten commandments that their only god gave them to follow. And therein is the answer, thou shall have no other gods before me. Apparently they haven't figured that out, so they talk their tolerant nonsense of the idol Jesus. I say to the Christian, you cannot put the plow before the oxen and expect to find fruitation at harvest time.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Nice job PLYMCO. We see eye to eye on this one. I couldn't have said it better myself so i wont try. Thanks.

 

[Frank]

My stance on Pastor Terry is nearly identical to my stance on the mosque.

He has the right to burn the koran under the first ammendment. However just because he has the right to do it doesn't mean he should. I think it is a very insensitive action and I dont think he, or anyone else, should be out burning Korans. By doing so he is being very insensitive and disrespectful to the feelings of the majority of americans.

Just like the mosque...the Imam, who just stated violence could ensue if the mosque isn't built, has every right to build the mosque there. However just becaues he has the right to do so doesn't mean he should. I think its a very insensitve action and I dont think he should be building the cordova center in that specific location. By doing so it is very insensitive and disrespectful to the feelings of the majority of americans.

Many of you posting here on the USMB sound very hypocritical in this arena. I think everyone should really examine their personal stances on these two issues and decide why they hold their opinions. It seems many on the left and right are just spouting off with talking points instead of coming to an opinion based on personal values.


Agree, Disagree, and discuss with me if you want.

I agree with what you are saying. Both have the right to do what they choose, but neither act is a responsible and respectful one.

 

[Hister]

I would burn all the korans I could find... if we had any mooslums where I live.
It's a Mooslum free zone. Just find one for yourself.

The pastor should invite people to bring a koran to the burning, then you'd see some real smoke.

 

[hortysir]

It's only insensitive if you believe that the American Muslims trying to build over there are in some way connected to 9/11.

Which I guess you do.

70% of americans think they shouldn't build there. it has nothing to do with thinking they're connected to 9/11. that's silly.

70% of americans are making the link between 9/11 and this group of Muslims. If "Ground zero" has nothing to do with 9/11, that is news to me.

I'd take that a step further and ask, "If the Muslims that wish to build the mosque think it has nothing to do with 9/11, why that location?"

 

[Intense]

Great news!!! The Mosque is going to relocate and the Koran burning is called off!!!

;woohoo

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Great news!!! The Mosque is going to relocate and the Koran burning is called off!!!

;woohoo

So says pastor terry

I heard that blurb on the news.

 

[jillian]

Leave aside the legal implications. We are a society of laws and one assumes that anyone who did that would be prosecuted and do serious time.... Do you think that would stop the fanatics within Islam? No.

And.... While I will say that I have seen some stupid anti-Muslim rhetoric from a minority of idiots on the right.... The media labels everyone who disagrees with the mosque as 'bigots'... If you want to lay claim of 'inciting violence' - lay it at the door of the MSM.

you can't in one breath say 'leave aside the legal implications' and in the next say 'we are a society of laws.... ". They work hand in hand.

I'm not going to get into a discussion about 'the media' because i think the right's constant whining about the media is a fabrication.... and unfounded. yes, there is some left-leaning.. probably for the same reasons that universities house more left-leaners.

but by far the more powerful media is in the hands of the rightwingers who dominate talk radio and fauxnews and their ilk.

 

[Intense]

Leave aside the legal implications. We are a society of laws and one assumes that anyone who did that would be prosecuted and do serious time.... Do you think that would stop the fanatics within Islam? No.

And.... While I will say that I have seen some stupid anti-Muslim rhetoric from a minority of idiots on the right.... The media labels everyone who disagrees with the mosque as 'bigots'... If you want to lay claim of 'inciting violence' - lay it at the door of the MSM.

you can't in one breath say 'leave aside the legal implications' and in the next say 'we are a society of laws.... ". They work hand in hand.

I'm not going to get into a discussion about 'the media' because i think the right's constant whining about the media is a fabrication.... and unfounded. yes, there is some left-leaning.. probably for the same reasons that universities house more left-leaners.

but by far the more powerful media is in the hands of the rightwingers who dominate talk radio and fauxnews and their ilk.

Face it.... We just do it better.

 

[Intense]

Great news!!! The Mosque is going to relocate and the Koran burning is called off!!!

;woohoo

So says pastor terry

I heard that blurb on the news.

The story is changing. Seems more like a bait and switch up here in the nose bleed seats.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Likewise. Both are legally within their rights. Morally, both are totally wrong. Having seen some of the posts on both topics, I kinda wonder whether some people actually understand the meaning of the term 'morals'.

It is likely not a misunderstanding but a difference in standards.

One must ask, "wrong based on which morals?" Man's morals, Muslims' morals, or G-d's morals?

Muslims' morals: building the mosque is good, burning Korans is evil

G-d's morals: building the mosque is evil, burning Korans (depends on who you talk to)

man's morals: depends on who you talk to.

 

[JW Frogen]

Pastor Terry Jones and his on again off again plan to burn a copy of the Koran on the anniversary of 9-11. An idiotic idea. An idiotic idea protected by the First Amendment. (Idiots need protection too, perhaps most of all.) There has been almost universal condemnation of this plan in the USA, from President Obama, General Petraeus to Sarah Palin. There has been almost a panic to stop this act.

Why?

Let me say I find book burning of any kind offensive (though Dan Brown or Sidney Sheldon would be a close run thing) and I do not advocate it, but I acknowledge the right of those who wish to burn a copy they own of any book as an expression of their speech. Normally, I would simply ignore them. The art of ignoring is an underestimated expression of the civilized mind. But we are forced not to ignore this idiot, why?

Why did a pastor with a church of under 50 people illicit such news coverage and wide spread condemnation? I submit it had little to do with him or his proposed act but rather the nature of Islam.

Burn a Bible and it will hardly make the local news. Create a work of art by pissing on a crucifix and there will not be mass riots or death threats. But if some obscure Christian pastor way down in backwoods Florida threatens to burn a Koran the Islamic world throws itself into an uproar with a very real threat of violence and death as a response.

‘Moderate’ Muslims declare they are gravely offended and that they will not be able to restrain their more violent fellow believers. Once again the “religion of peace” claims simultaneously both a victim and bully status. Islam shouts ‘feel our pain or our more violent members will inflict pain and death, almost randomly, on you.’ And this is no idle threat as many Muslims will kill to silence criticism or offense, as they have proven time and time again from Rushdie to the Danish cartoons. So we give in, condemning and thus highlighting the actions of an obscure idiot pastor because Islam has been effective at imposing both a sense of pity for their theological pain and fear of their very real worldly violent response.

The problem here is not some redneck idiot burning the Koran, the problem here is a religion that is so insecure it sees burning a Koran as a mortal wound. A religion so sure of its grand claims about the cosmos it is willing to kill in response to insult.

It is enough to make you want to burn a Koran.

 

[Bootneck]

Pastor Terry Jones and his on again off again plan to burn a copy of the Koran on the anniversary of 9-11. An idiotic idea. An idiotic idea protected by the First Amendment. (Idiots need protection too, perhaps most of all.) There has been almost universal condemnation of this plan in the USA, from President Obama, General Petraeus to Sarah Palin. There has been almost a panic to stop this act.

Why?

Let me say I find book burning of any kind offensive (though Dan Brown or Sidney Sheldon would be a close run thing) and I do not advocate it, but I acknowledge the right of those who wish to burn a copy they own of any book as an expression of their speech. Normally, I would simply ignore them. The art of ignoring is an underestimated expression of the civilized mind. But we are forced not to ignore this idiot, why?

Why did a pastor with a church of under 50 people illicit such news coverage and wide spread condemnation? I submit it had little to do with him or his proposed act but rather the nature of Islam.

Burn a Bible and it will hardly make the local news. Create a work of art by pissing on a crucifix and there will not be mass riots or death threats. But if some obscure Christian pastor way down in backwoods Florida threatens to burn a Koran the Islamic world throws itself into an uproar with a very real threat of violence and death as a response.

‘Moderate’ Muslims declare they are gravely offended and that they will not be able to restrain their more violent fellow believers. Once again the “religion of peace” claims simultaneously both a victim and bully status. Islam shouts ‘feel our pain or our more violent members will inflict pain and death, almost randomly, on you.’ And this is no idle threat as many Muslims will kill to silence criticism or offense, as they have proven time and time again from Rushdie to the Danish cartoons. So we give in, condemning and thus highlighting the actions of an obscure idiot pastor because Islam has been effective at imposing both a sense of pity for their theological pain and fear of their very real worldly violent response.

The problem here is not some redneck idiot burning the Koran, the problem here is a religion that is so insecure it sees burning a Koran as a mortal wound. A religion so sure of its grand claims about the cosmos it is willing to kill in response to insult.

It is enough to make you want to burn a Koran.

You OK Frogen? You sound sober!

 

[editec]

Yup.

In many ways these issues share similar traits.

They both demand that we recognize the Americans' Consitutional rights to freedom of expression, to private property, and to freedom of association and religion.

If one is being consistent with the Constitution, burning the Koran is a non issue.

Likewise, building that mosque is ALSO a non-issue.