-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Whats the big deal with Flushing a Koran down the Toilet?
- Thread starter galeninjapan
- Start date
- Status
Irrelevant.Nerevar said:
The Geneva Conventions apply to the treatment combatants and non-combatants in times of war. They have nothing to do with the actions of citizens within a country during peacetime, although other international laws and standards may address those actions.
Is it a "gross international violation" on its own? No. When coupled with the far more serious issues that I mentioned (and you chose not to respond to), it is another element in a pattern of behavior which is illegal, in my opinion. I'm sorry, but you can't just define a new class of people and claim that an existing treaty doesn't apply.
Dude, the geneva convention governs behaviour during wartime. What's that got to do with public protests?
Look why don't you go through the Geneva Convention and then highlight the bits that you think go too far. It's far better than your current reactions which are pretty kneejerk in nature.
Instigator
Banned
The biggest travesty in this is that America has been sermoning other countries about human rights for decades. Telling them to ease down on the repression, the torture and all and being at war wasn't a good enough reason to trample on human rights.
Now the roles are reversed and America is facing the same kind of enemy other countries has faced for years and it has changed its tune and decides what are the rules, just because it can.
Now the roles are reversed and America is facing the same kind of enemy other countries has faced for years and it has changed its tune and decides what are the rules, just because it can.
Kung Fu Jedi
Member
human5892 said:
I agree with you completely human. I don't think two wrongs make a right either, and as a US citizen, I want to see our government hold itself to those higher ideals that we expect them to, which at times lately seems to be a more and more futile hope. I was just trying to offer a different perspective on how these actions can incite such out rage against the US, yet the terrorists are able to use tactics and methods that are far beyond this act, and well outside the Geneva Convention.
I do think that the average American doesn't understand why Muslims are upset over this. At least to the extend that they would riot and demonstrate in the streets. You would think that the government and military would be taking great strides to not alienate the Muslim countries any further. Again though, this incident has not been proven to have happened, but it still is an example of how delicate this situation is.
I agree, and this is the real crux of the issue. While I don't think America is as reckless with its human rights standards as some alarmists would like to think (nowhere near the worst in the world, for example) the issues are definitely there and they're made worse by the hypocrasy that surrounds them.Instigator said:
Yeah, it can definitely be frustrating to be the guy to take the moral high ground, and the tempation to just get down and dirty and match what the other guy is doing can be very strong. Hopefully the next set of leaders in our country will be able to pull the U.S. out of this tailspin and restore its reputation -- and that, in the long-run, is what will help us in the Middle East.Kung Fu Jedi said:
-jinx- said:
Azih said:
You guys seem to be missing my point entirely, which deals with this one incident.
And -Jinx-, didn't respond to? I said fair enough - I'm not "out to prove Bush and the good ole' boys right" or anything like that, it's just that I've seen the term "gross international violation" thrown around at least twice in this thread in relation to the specific act of defacing the Koran. I'm ignoring the other stuff because it's irrelevant to the point I'm talking about what should be considered right or wrong. I merely asked whether or not the "Koran-flushing"was what people were referring to when they said the US was violating international law, and I got a response / correction. I still think my original point stands - that it's ridiculous this is somehow considered some "horrible" action.
human5892 said:
I've had discussions with Muslim friends before about the Koran and I understand, at least vaguely, the reverence given to it (it is why it is not translated, at all, even into a more modern Arabic - which is coincidentally the reason for a lot of the odder Muslim laws, such as women covering their face). Like I said, my beliefs most likely stem from my secular, atheist viewpoint, but this basically boils down to a flag-burning debate to me, which is stupid. People should have the right to free expression, no matter how that corresponds with other's views, and as long as that doesn't "violate the peace" in some manner people should be allowed to express themselves (and that, to me, would represent flushing the Koran if they wanted to demonstrate their distaste of Muslim philosophy).
I completely agree about free expression (and I am an atheist too), and for the most part, people in the U.S. do have that right. But this isn't about right of expression -- these soldiers are (allegedly) deliberately using a technique that they know is extremely psychologically detremental to their prisoners -- some of whom haven't even shown to be guilty of any particular crime and have been denied basic criminal rights -- in a wrongheaded attempt to get information. Think "cruel and unusual punishment", but on an international scale and magnified by context and other factors. That is what the "big deal" is, to use our banned friend's terminology.Nerevar said:
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Nerevar said:
You live in an affluent, modern, liberal society. The people who staged violent protests about this unsourced rumor, which was repeated by a cricket star for political purposes, do not. Your way of analyzing this situation is completely alien to the illiterate, unemployed guy who rushes out of a mosque to join the protest after hearing the imam denounce Jews and America for an hour.
There were no violent riots in the Bible Belt after Palestinean gunmen took over the Church of the Nativity and used the priests and nuns as human shields.
Instigator
Banned
Guileless said:
No, they'll just massively fill Republican party coffers, putting pro-Israeli politicians in the government and give Israel tacit approval for other military incursions in occupied territories and more Jewish settlements on top of keeping the flow of financial aid intact.
Wait, they would have done this whether gunmen used priests and nuns as human shields or not.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
:lol :lol :loltedtropy said:
Kung Fu Jedi
Member
ronito said:
Excellent point!! That was a travesty of the highest level too, and hit me, as a history buff, far more heavily than the Koran.
Kabuki Waq
Member
it is a good point but 2 wrongs do not make a right.
Kung Fu Jedi said:
those muslims, namely the taliban, dont represent muslims as whole whereas the koran represents and touches all muslims, no matter what level of faith u are at...liberal, moderate, or extremist. there is no doubt that there is a big group of retarded muslims who take things too far but they shouldnt represent all of islam or muslims.
as i heard one fellow muslim once say "islam is perfect and the best religion, but the muslims are the worst followers". with that said the koran is very high for us and to demean it should illicit an angry response.
maybe it is a bit diff...the koran is highly sacred to us, just as other holy books are to thier respective religions, and demeaning the book is demeaning muslims.
Kung Fu Jedi
Member
Kabuki Waq said:
I don't think that was what he was trying to say. And I've been hearing people post in this thread "two wrongs don't make a right", which I agree with, but if Muslims are going to riot in the street over the way the Koran is handled, they need to consider that other Muslims have made similar acts against other religions as well. I think he was pointing out the hypocracy involved with Muslims crying out in rage, especially in Afghanistan where people actually died in the protesting, when only a few years ago similar acts were done against Buddists.
fortified_concept
Banned
tedtropy said:
:lol:lol:lol
Damn you I can't stop laughing and it's almost midnight here. :lol
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
ronito said:
I thought it was said that the riots were not a result of the Newsweek article?
Instigator
Banned
Kung Fu Jedi said:
Buddhists don't consider those statues as holy as Muslims do with the Koran. I'm sure they care, just like many historians and tourists cared those statues were destroyed, but it's apples and oranges. That's why people in this thread have trouble finding something to compare this act to. Muslims have the Koran on a high pedestal, it's something that is just hard to grasp for most of us in the West, just accept it.
The error is focusing on the act and not the intent. Guantanamo guards knew what the Koran meant to Muslims in their care, that's why they did it. The goal is to break these people, either by using 'physical pressure', sleep deprevation, humiliating them and defiling the Koran. It's the same reason many of the leaked pictures from Abu Graibh were more disgusting to Muslims than us in the West. It showed an utter disrespect to Muslim sensibilities, it's a pattern of behavior that is shocking to these people and what makes them hate and distrust this government so much.
Good riddance. Trying to sift through GJ's rhetoric reminded me of this clip I saw yesterday:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/05/28.html#a3155
Watching O'Reilly attempt to re-interpret the Geneva Convention and play cross examiner is worth the price of admission alone.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/05/28.html#a3155
Watching O'Reilly attempt to re-interpret the Geneva Convention and play cross examiner is worth the price of admission alone.
Leave the cats alone.
Now back to the koran, bible, flag whatever...
Burn it, step on it, flush it, pee on it. What does that truly change? Not a damn thing. Why go nuts over it? Sure it might suck seeing that happen to something you take pride in, but really, on the grand scheme, it's silly to get yourself worked up over paper or cloth when the others sole intent was to piss you off.
Don't let it make you sweat.
Now back to the koran, bible, flag whatever...
Burn it, step on it, flush it, pee on it. What does that truly change? Not a damn thing. Why go nuts over it? Sure it might suck seeing that happen to something you take pride in, but really, on the grand scheme, it's silly to get yourself worked up over paper or cloth when the others sole intent was to piss you off.
Don't let it make you sweat.
Teknopathetic
Member
"Burn it, step on it, flush it, pee on it. What does that truly change? Not a damn thing. Why go nuts over it? Sure it might suck seeing that happen to something you take pride in, but really, on the grand scheme, it's silly to get yourself worked up over paper or cloth when the others sole intent was to piss you off."
That's really not the point of the thread/article.
That's really not the point of the thread/article.
Kabuki Waq
Member
Tazznum1 said:
what if some white guy in power flushed down a a pic of Martin Luther King right infront of you what message would that send? or what if he did that in a public setting?
its not that act of flushing that the worst paart but what it represents.
Xenon
Member
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...s_disrespected/
Why Islam is disrespected
Jeff Jacoby
May 20, 2005
It was front-page news this week when Newsweek retracted a report
claiming that a US interrogator in Guantanamo had flushed a copy of the
Koran down a toilet. Everywhere it was noted that Newsweek's story had
sparked widespread Muslim rioting, in which at least 17 people were
killed. But there was no mention of deadly protests triggered in
recent years by comparable acts of desecration against other religions.
No one recalled, for example, that American Catholics lashed out in
violent rampages in 1989, after photographer Andres Serrano's ''Piss
Christ" -- a photograph of a crucifix submerged in urine -- was
included in an exhibition subsidized by the National Endowment for the
Arts. Or that they rioted in 1992 when singer Sinead O'Connor,
appearing on ''Saturday Night Live," ripped up a photograph of Pope
John Paul II.
There was no reminder that Jewish communities erupted in lethal
violence in 2000, after Arabs demolished Joseph's Tomb, torching the
ancient shrine and murdering a young rabbi who tried to save a Torah
from the flames. And nobody noted that Buddhists went on a killing
spree in 2001 in response to the destruction of two priceless,
1,500-year-old statues of Buddha by the Taliban government in
Afghanistan.
Of course, there was a good reason all these bloody protests went
unremembered in the coverage of the Newsweek affair: They never
occurred.
Christians, Jews, and Buddhists don't lash out in homicidal rage
when their religion is insulted. They don't call for holy war and riot
in the streets. It would be unthinkable today for a mainstream priest,
rabbi, or lama to demand that a blasphemer be slain. But when Reuters
reported what Mohammad Hanif, the imam of a Muslim seminary in
Pakistan, said about the alleged Koran-flushers -- ''They should be
hung. They should be killed in public so that no one can dare to
insult Islam and its sacred symbols" -- was any reader surprised?
The Muslim riots should have been met by an international upwelling
of outrage and condemnation. From every part of the civilized world
should have come denunciations of those who would react to the supposed
destruction of a book with brutal threats and the slaughter of 17
innocent people. But the chorus of condemnation was directed not at
the killers and the fanatics who incited them, but at Newsweek.
From the White House down, the magazine was slammed -- for running
an item it should have known might prove incendiary, for relying on a
shaky source, for its animus toward the military and the war. Over and
over, Newsweek was blamed for the riots' death toll. Conservative
pundits in particular piled on. ''Newsweek lied, people died" was the
headline on Michelle Malkin's popular website. At NationalReview.com,
Paul Marshall of Freedom House fumed: ''What planet do these [Newsweek]
people live on? . . . Anybody with a little knowledge could have
told them it was likely that people would die as a result of the
article." All of Marshall's choler was reserved for Newsweek; he had
no criticism at all -- not a word -- for the marauders in the Muslim
street.
Then there was Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who announced
at a Senate hearing that she had a message for ''Muslims in America and
throughout the world." And what was that message? That decent people
do not resort to murder just because someone has offended their
religious sensibilities? That the primitive bloodlust raging in
Afghanistan and Pakistan was evidence of the Muslim world's
dysfunctional political culture? That the Bush administration would
redouble its efforts to defeat the Islamofascist radicals who use
religion as an excuse to foment violence and terror?
No: Her message was that ''disrespect for the Holy Koran is not
now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, tolerated by the United
States. We honor the sacred books of all the world's great religions."
Granted, Rice spoke while the rioting was still taking place and
her goal was to reduce the anti-American fever. But what ''Muslims in
America and throughout the world" most need to hear is not pandering
sweet-talk. What they need is a blunt reminder that the real
desecration of Islam is not what some interrogator in Guantanamo might
have done to the Koran. It is what totalitarian Muslim zealots have
been doing to innocent human beings in the name of Islam. It is 9/11
and Beslan and Bali and Daniel Pearl and the USS Cole. It is trains in
Madrid and schoolbuses in Israel and an ''insurgency" in Iraq that
slaughters Muslims as they pray and vote and line up for work. It is
Hamas and Al Qaeda and sermons filled with infidel-hatred and
exhortations to ''martyrdom."
But what disgraces Islam above all is the vast majority of the
planet's Muslims saying nothing and doing nothing about the jihadist
cancer eating away at their religion. It is Free Muslims Against
Terrorism, a pro-democracy organization, calling on Muslims and Middle
Easterners to ''converge on our nation's capital for a rally against
terrorism" this month -- and having only 50 people show up.
Yes, Islam is disrespected. That will only change when throngs of
passionate Muslims show up for rallies against terrorism, and when
rabble-rousers trying to gin up a riot over a defiled Koran can't get
the time of day.
©2005 Boston Globe
Why Islam is disrespected
Jeff Jacoby
May 20, 2005
It was front-page news this week when Newsweek retracted a report
claiming that a US interrogator in Guantanamo had flushed a copy of the
Koran down a toilet. Everywhere it was noted that Newsweek's story had
sparked widespread Muslim rioting, in which at least 17 people were
killed. But there was no mention of deadly protests triggered in
recent years by comparable acts of desecration against other religions.
No one recalled, for example, that American Catholics lashed out in
violent rampages in 1989, after photographer Andres Serrano's ''Piss
Christ" -- a photograph of a crucifix submerged in urine -- was
included in an exhibition subsidized by the National Endowment for the
Arts. Or that they rioted in 1992 when singer Sinead O'Connor,
appearing on ''Saturday Night Live," ripped up a photograph of Pope
John Paul II.
There was no reminder that Jewish communities erupted in lethal
violence in 2000, after Arabs demolished Joseph's Tomb, torching the
ancient shrine and murdering a young rabbi who tried to save a Torah
from the flames. And nobody noted that Buddhists went on a killing
spree in 2001 in response to the destruction of two priceless,
1,500-year-old statues of Buddha by the Taliban government in
Afghanistan.
Of course, there was a good reason all these bloody protests went
unremembered in the coverage of the Newsweek affair: They never
occurred.
Christians, Jews, and Buddhists don't lash out in homicidal rage
when their religion is insulted. They don't call for holy war and riot
in the streets. It would be unthinkable today for a mainstream priest,
rabbi, or lama to demand that a blasphemer be slain. But when Reuters
reported what Mohammad Hanif, the imam of a Muslim seminary in
Pakistan, said about the alleged Koran-flushers -- ''They should be
hung. They should be killed in public so that no one can dare to
insult Islam and its sacred symbols" -- was any reader surprised?
The Muslim riots should have been met by an international upwelling
of outrage and condemnation. From every part of the civilized world
should have come denunciations of those who would react to the supposed
destruction of a book with brutal threats and the slaughter of 17
innocent people. But the chorus of condemnation was directed not at
the killers and the fanatics who incited them, but at Newsweek.
From the White House down, the magazine was slammed -- for running
an item it should have known might prove incendiary, for relying on a
shaky source, for its animus toward the military and the war. Over and
over, Newsweek was blamed for the riots' death toll. Conservative
pundits in particular piled on. ''Newsweek lied, people died" was the
headline on Michelle Malkin's popular website. At NationalReview.com,
Paul Marshall of Freedom House fumed: ''What planet do these [Newsweek]
people live on? . . . Anybody with a little knowledge could have
told them it was likely that people would die as a result of the
article." All of Marshall's choler was reserved for Newsweek; he had
no criticism at all -- not a word -- for the marauders in the Muslim
street.
Then there was Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who announced
at a Senate hearing that she had a message for ''Muslims in America and
throughout the world." And what was that message? That decent people
do not resort to murder just because someone has offended their
religious sensibilities? That the primitive bloodlust raging in
Afghanistan and Pakistan was evidence of the Muslim world's
dysfunctional political culture? That the Bush administration would
redouble its efforts to defeat the Islamofascist radicals who use
religion as an excuse to foment violence and terror?
No: Her message was that ''disrespect for the Holy Koran is not
now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, tolerated by the United
States. We honor the sacred books of all the world's great religions."
Granted, Rice spoke while the rioting was still taking place and
her goal was to reduce the anti-American fever. But what ''Muslims in
America and throughout the world" most need to hear is not pandering
sweet-talk. What they need is a blunt reminder that the real
desecration of Islam is not what some interrogator in Guantanamo might
have done to the Koran. It is what totalitarian Muslim zealots have
been doing to innocent human beings in the name of Islam. It is 9/11
and Beslan and Bali and Daniel Pearl and the USS Cole. It is trains in
Madrid and schoolbuses in Israel and an ''insurgency" in Iraq that
slaughters Muslims as they pray and vote and line up for work. It is
Hamas and Al Qaeda and sermons filled with infidel-hatred and
exhortations to ''martyrdom."
But what disgraces Islam above all is the vast majority of the
planet's Muslims saying nothing and doing nothing about the jihadist
cancer eating away at their religion. It is Free Muslims Against
Terrorism, a pro-democracy organization, calling on Muslims and Middle
Easterners to ''converge on our nation's capital for a rally against
terrorism" this month -- and having only 50 people show up.
Yes, Islam is disrespected. That will only change when throngs of
passionate Muslims show up for rallies against terrorism, and when
rabble-rousers trying to gin up a riot over a defiled Koran can't get
the time of day.
©2005 Boston Globe
Kabuki Waq
Member
Tazznum1 said:
no but do i think its a big deal? YES.
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
Macam said:
Holy shit that pissed me the fuck off.
Tazznum1 said:
Easy enough to be said when you're sitting comfortably on the Internet and not in a third-world country whose government was recently toppled by a superpower, leaving the condition of the government only marginally better on a day to day basis; that is, with limited to no education, barely sustainable means, continued, if not increased, violence. And now they're desecrating the one thing you cherish and hold to be true, with reports of increasing hostile and abusive behavior towards people of your faith.
Yeah, sure, don't get worked about it. Now, granted, that's perhaps mildly overdramatic here, but it's not far from the truth about the people who were rioting in Afghanistan. Saying, "What's the big deal?" is just ignorant.
O'Reilly is fundamentally infuriating. "Can't get a straight answer!" No shit, fucknut. Your questions skewed and provide no way out for a rational person.Macam said:
It kills me that people take that cocksucker seriously. The hypocrasy and double standards reach ridiculous levels with that man.
So angry.
Nerevar said:
Wait, a lack of translation into modernized language is why the Koran describes women covering their faces?
Even if I misread that, anything you possibly meant there is bullshit.
After Muhammad's death, but before the Koran was written, his followers continued to spread Islam. They conquered many lands, nations, and empires while forming the Islamic Empire, and some of these conquered lands' customs & traditions were absorbed into Islam and became part of the Koran, such as the veiling of women in public, a common practice in Persia. This practice was adopted by Muhammad's followers after they conquered Persia.
PS2 KID said:
I think the article was correct in that it is the wrong reaction by radical muslims, but who are we as Americans to criticize anyone after all the bullshit we have just been involved in in the last 3 years alone. I mean we just invaded a country for no apparent reason, so if anyone is going to criticize another people or religion for being irrational it had better be someone other then America. Then again, America doesn't seem to be that well respected anymore either.
i absolutely agree. and thats why i hate talibans. talibans are hardcore extremists, i honestly have no idea if there are taliban equivalents among other religions. the thing is, average muslims don't agree with those acts either.ronito said:
so you cant say, well, but your ppl did this, so i can do this to you, and its all fair, understand?
because then i'd be like..."err, dude...but i didn't break those buddist statues! why did you just spit on my mother?"
Instigator
Banned
Xenon said:
You posted this article before. It is a bit naive and rather US-centric.
Hollow words.
Oh please. Were the LA riots met with international upwelling against blacks because apparently, they didn't simply like the verdict in one particular trial? As if there was absolutely nothing else fueling this.
There are two different issues here. Let's not mix them up.
That ought to be sweet.
Their job would be made a lot easier if the Palestinian issue and a superpower supporting dictatorships and invading strategic countries with the excuse of implementing democracy. Those are the two main issues that fuels the 'jihadist cancer', issues that also upset a large silent majority and makes them indirectly support jihadists, even though they may not like their bloody ways.
Solve those two things and the jihadists will have little to stand on. It would make it a lot easier to condemn them after that.
How enlightening.
You know what fine, Xenon keeps on reposting that article as if he's making any sort of a point and it's starting to cheese me off.
First off, both times the article has been posted has had nothing to do with the actual thread itself. In fact the only connection I can find between the article and the alleged acts involving the Quran is that both involve muslims in some way and the article mentions the allegations in its opening paragraph. That's it.
This was not a blood crazed lynching as this article falsely insinuates. It was a tragedy caused by the confusion of a riot. Some of it was caused by inexperienced Afghani police firing at the protestors. So there were no 'killers' or 'murderers' here.
I'd actually agree with the rest of the durn article. If it wasn't tainted by the stupidity of the first part. Further the article itself adds nothing to the discussion of what happened or did not happen in Guantanamo. So frankly Xenon if you want to talk about your disrespect for Islam then make a new thread and stop clogging up these ones with that article while pretending that you're actually adding anything to the discussion.. Just do so carefully or you'll find yourself banned.
First off, both times the article has been posted has had nothing to do with the actual thread itself. In fact the only connection I can find between the article and the alleged acts involving the Quran is that both involve muslims in some way and the article mentions the allegations in its opening paragraph. That's it.
But Hindus have http://us.rediff.com/news/2005/may/02babri.htm , what the heck does that prove? Nothing.Xenon said:
This was not a blood crazed lynching as this article falsely insinuates. It was a tragedy caused by the confusion of a riot. Some of it was caused by inexperienced Afghani police firing at the protestors. So there were no 'killers' or 'murderers' here.
no killers. See above. See http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2005/05/11/riot/ for an actual account of what happened at the riots. Not just Mr.Jacoby for hearing that people died and assuming the worst.
Same comment/criticism as above. Though ingraining the false statement through repetition is a nice touch.
No murder.
calling it primitive is condescending in the extreme, it wasn't bloodlust as there was no murder, just people getting killed in the confusion of a mess of bodies and inexperienced security forces.
If Mr.Jacoby is right and anybody who was enraged by the idea that a Quran was flushed down a toilet is an islamofacist radical then damn but you guys really are at war with a billion + people.
The fact that Mr.Jacoby doesn't realise that first isn't also a desecration speaks to his ignorance about Islam.
I'd actually agree with the rest of the durn article. If it wasn't tainted by the stupidity of the first part. Further the article itself adds nothing to the discussion of what happened or did not happen in Guantanamo. So frankly Xenon if you want to talk about your disrespect for Islam then make a new thread and stop clogging up these ones with that article while pretending that you're actually adding anything to the discussion.. Just do so carefully or you'll find yourself banned.
I didn't care for the article.
Yes, it is a true statement that the radical part of Islam -- the part which misinterprets the Koran in a particularly nasty way -- ought to be pointed out as being the problem. It is absolutely an overreaction to stage a violent protest over a fucking BOOK being desecrated. I try to be tolerant of religious viewpoints, but come ON, people -- it's not like it's the only copy of Allah's word that exists.
On the other hand, doing something deliberately provocative to ALL Muslims is also flagrantly stupid. Pointing your finger at someone else and saying, "but what THEY did is worse!" is not a defense.
Finally, if the real enemy is religious extremism, who is going to step up and condemn the parts of American Christianity which are fucking with our legal and political process? We don't riot over Bible burnings, but somehow the author wants to overlook shootings at abortion clinics.
Yes, it is a true statement that the radical part of Islam -- the part which misinterprets the Koran in a particularly nasty way -- ought to be pointed out as being the problem. It is absolutely an overreaction to stage a violent protest over a fucking BOOK being desecrated. I try to be tolerant of religious viewpoints, but come ON, people -- it's not like it's the only copy of Allah's word that exists.
On the other hand, doing something deliberately provocative to ALL Muslims is also flagrantly stupid. Pointing your finger at someone else and saying, "but what THEY did is worse!" is not a defense.
Finally, if the real enemy is religious extremism, who is going to step up and condemn the parts of American Christianity which are fucking with our legal and political process? We don't riot over Bible burnings, but somehow the author wants to overlook shootings at abortion clinics.
Instigator
Banned
sp0rsk said:
Who cares. :lol
Instigator
Banned
sp0rsk said:
It's about flushing the Koran.
If most Christians are ok with Christ soaked in urine then there's no issue though I doubt fundamentalists are really indifferent to it. I remember their reaction to the Last Temptation of Christ and that was just a movie.
Xenon said:
This guy really has no right to talk about Muslims this way or talk about the Quran as being just another book. Seriously, one cannot understand why the Quran flushing thing is so important unless they are a muslim. Every choice we make in the everyday life is based on the teachings of the Quran, the way we eat, what we eat, how we wash up, almost every single aspect of our life is dictated by the Quran. It is a symbol of our religion and disrespecting it like that is not the same as a church burning down, or some buddhist stutues being destroyed. Plus I am 99% sure that the killings were unintentional. The only thing I agree with that article is why muslims aren't speaking against the terrorists. It may be possibly because they are scared because these terrorists are lunatics and will go to any heights to kill someone opposing them. And no I do not consider them muslims. I in fact would rather become a christian or a jew before I would ever associate myself with them. Every action of the terrorist goes against Islams teachings and not only that, the terrorists have killed more muslims than any other people, so it's not like they're fighting for the sake of muslims and Islam, they are fighting for the sake of fighting because as I mentioned before, they are crazed lunatics who would be in a mental institute if they were born and brought up in a western nation.
Plus I have some really bad things to say about the topic creator but I'll keep my mouth shut.
Instigator said:It's about flushing the Koran.
If most Christians are ok with Christ soaked in urine then there's no issue though I doubt fundamentalists are really indifferent to it. I remember their reaction to the Last Temptation of Christ and that was just a movie.
when it was made it made quite an uproar, people didnt riot but it changed the way the government passes out grants to artists.
either way, people are gonna get pissed if somethign they believe in gets pissed....on.......
- Status