Burn-A-Koran Day to be held on anniversary of 9/11, tension mounts

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1310035/9-11-Koran-burning-US-teacher-Afghanistan-pleads-pastor-Terry-Jones.html


'We are still determined': U.S. pastor vows to carry out Burn-a-Koran day on Sept 11 despite death threats



Hillary Clinton: Act is 'disrespectful and disgraceful'



General Petraeus: 'It will spark war against all Christians'




http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/09/08/article-1310035-0B18AE62000005DC-99_233x423.jpg




The leader of a tiny U.S. church said yesterday that he will defy international condemnation and go ahead with plans to burn copies of the Koran on the anniversary of September 11. The Rev Terry Jones has been advised by the senior U.S. leader in Afghanistan, General David Petaeus, that the stunt would put American soldiers lives at greater risk and provide propaganda for the Taliban. But Rev Jones, who claims to have received more than 100 death threats and has begun carrying a pistol for his own protection, today held a press conference to announce that he will not back down in the face of military, political or moral pressure. 'As you can imagine we have come under very much pressure in the direction of cancelling the event,' said the minister, whose church has fewer than 100. 'But as of this time we have no intention of cancelling. 'We have also, which is something the news media has missed, received quite a lot of support. 'We understand General Petraeus's concern and we are still considering it. 'But as of now we are not convinced that backing down is the right thing to do. 'So we will continue with our planned event '
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/09/08/article-1310035-0B131395000005DC-576_468x319.jpg



Rev Jones also met with Imam Muhammad Musri, president of the Islamic Society of Central Florida, who later told reporters he does not hold a grudge against the Gainesville pastor. Rev Jones, 58, said in July he would stage an 'international Burn-a-Koran Day' at the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida. But supporters have been posting copies of the Koran for him to put on a bonfire on Saturday to mark the ninth anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks and he is now in possession of 200 copies of the religious text. Rev Jones refusal to back down comes after an American teacher working in Afghanistan warned Mr Jones that his life is in danger because of the stunt.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/09/08/article-1310035-0B0EE73F000005DC-878_468x313.jpg




The unnamed lecturer wrote an impassioned email at the weekend describing 'boisterous protesters' condemning the pastor outside his classroom, according to the New York Times. 'Your actions endanger my life,' he wrote. However, Rev Jones claimed he is even prepared to die for his cause and said: 'It's something we need to do. It's a message we need to send. 'We are prepared to give our lives for this.' The lecturer's email arrived as Hillary Clinton joined in mounting criticism of Mr Jones' Dove World Outreach Centre.


The U.S. Secretary of State told a religious meeting in Washington that the stunt was 'disrespectful' and 'disgraceful'. Mrs Clinton said: 'I am heartened by the clear, unequivocal condemnation of this disrespectful, disgraceful act that has come from American religious leaders of all faiths. 'Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. 'Many of you know that in 1790, George Washington wrote to a synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island, that this country will give "to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance".'



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/09/08/article-1310035-0B0944E3000005DC-635_468x313.jpg




But Mr Jones insisted he would go ahead with his plans, despite criticism from the top U.S. general in Afghanistan, the White House and the State Department, as well as a host of religious leaders including the Vatican which denounced the event as 'an outrageous and grave gesture against a book considered sacred by a religious community.' Mr Jones, who is known for posting signs proclaiming that Islam is the devil's religion, said the U.S. Constitution gives him the right to publicly set fire to the book that Muslims consider the word of God.God bless the US Consitution which, although being worn away by legislation such as the US Patriot Act, still stands strong to protect freedom, civil liberties and democracy. This is a stark contrast to the United Kingdom when the previous Labour government banned Dutch politician Geert Wilders from entering the country after he had been invited to show his anti-Islam film Fitna in Westminister at the invitation of Lord Pearson and Baroness Cox - yet outside parliament we had muslims calling for Wilders to be 'got', in other words; killed.

Although this is a very provocative act, I am with him for three reasons; 1) he is going to get up the noses of the political elite in the western world who preach morals yet who start wars based on lies. 2) he is going to piss off the religious nutcases of the Islamic faith who find time to burn effigys of anyone who dares speak their mind. Finally and most importantly, he is exercising his right to freedom of speech.

I believe it was Jesse Ventura or Ron Paul who stated that protect of freedom of speech was designed to protect unpopular speech, not popular speech - that is very very true. In the words of Geert Wilders "There is not a right in any law that says you should never be insulted.".

Thoughts on the situation?

[MrPinkPanther]

The Koran is a fairly aggressive book that I don't agree with. However whilst I support this guys right to burn books he is a total ********. Imagine if someone in America held a bible burning ceremony, they would be shot pure and simple. This supposedly religious and "just" man must be fully aware of the repercussions it will have against American troops in Muslim areas where they are stationed. It is impractical, insensitive and down right wrong as far as I'm concerned.

[alexxxxx]

i think he's an idiot and only making a fragile situation worse.

[Misawa]

Who cares? Anyone can burn whatever book they want...

[kk.]

I wish the posters they have made made sense..

I dunno. I'm in two minds tbh. Freedom of speech etc, but people moan at Muslims who speak there mind. Though, who told every press paper in the world he was doing this? Probably him. He wants to cause controversy by the looks of things.

[Misawa]

I say burn every religious book. I can't believe how much death and destruction has been caused by things that don't actually exist.

[HotelUser]

Palin: Koran burning is 'unnecessary provocation'
(AFP) – 1 hour ago
WASHINGTON — Former US vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin on Wednesday condemned a small Florida church's planned Koran burning ceremony as an "insensitive and an unnecessary provocation."
"Book burning is antithetical to American ideals," Palin, a possible Republican contender for the White House in 2012, said in a post on her Facebook page.
"People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation -- much like building a mosque at Ground Zero," said the former Alaska governor.
She was comparing the evangelical Christian Dove World Outreach Center's plans to torch Islam's holy book on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist strikes to plans to build a community center to include a mosque some two blocks from the site of the attacks in New York City.
Palin urged the Koran burning organizer, Pastor Terry Jones, to reconsider the possible effects of their planned gesture, which has drawn expressions of outrage from around the globe.
"It will feed the fire of caustic rhetoric and appear as nothing more than mean-spirited religious intolerance. Don't feed that fire," she said.
"If your ultimate point is to prove that the Christian teachings of mercy, justice, freedom, and equality provide the foundation on which our country stands, then your tactic to prove this point is totally counter-productive."
Palin noted the importance of freedom of religion in the United States and warned against "unnecessarily provoking strife."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5haZ7jc3TXTm4oiwSQ4-qRe4tOs_w

[alexxxxx]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5haZ7jc3TXTm4oiwSQ4-qRe4tOs_w

even PALIN is condemning this!? wow i have some new found respect for this woman.

[HotelUser]

even PALIN is condemning this!? wow i have some new found respect for this woman.

The article I've quoted was the numero uno result on Google for a search of Koran. I'm really surprised at how much coverage Palin's views gets online. Apparently she's quite the avid social website user which has to be the cause.

As for burning Korans I sort of think that's hate to remember a crime of hate, which sort of contradicts itself in my opinion.

[immense]

I can't believe anyone would think this is acceptable...? I'm all for freedom of speech but burning the Koran will only incite hatred and certain groups will almost certainly seek revenge. I'd be surprised if this doesn't end in loss of life. Not at this ridiculous Burn-A-Koran Day event but in the up and coming weeks. Disgusting and unnecessary.

[Inseriousity.]

My RE teacher always said "I applaud the Muslims cos when they're offended, they rally together and cry out whereas Christians have a little moan and that's the end of it", referring ofc to the scandal of South Park and their Muhammad sketch!

However, there are ways of protesting and burning a holy book isn't one of them. There are numerous people throughout history who have proven that you don't need to incite violence or hate to be victorious. The bombers of the 9/11 want us to fight, to argue amongst ourselves because that makes their mission so much easier, which is NOT to promote the word of Allah but to continue their grudge against the West.

PS. LOL, did anyone think Korean not Koran when they looked at thread title, which is ofc a lot nastier than burning a book! I'm so used to spelling it Qu'ran that I didn't think of alternative spellings

[Ardemax]

don't agree with the koran (or however you spell it) but i don't agree that burning them, will really do anything to remember the tragic day on 9/11

it is an attack on islam and tbh only a minority of islamic people are extremeists

[Mathew]

This guy is only in it for the publicity and the money. He's selling t-shirts and promoting his website all over, advertising his special day.

While I do think religion is the cause of pretty much all wars, arguments and disputes, I think this is a tad far and you have to learn to accept it was only a small group of people who performed the 9/11 attacks - so why take it out on a whole religion?

[Nixt]

He's exercising his right to freedom of expression, more than freedom of speech. Just saying.

Anyway, I personally think it's a ridiculous publicity stunt - in protest of the actions of the minority members of a religion, he is stooping down to their level and behaving in a way that can only be likened to the extremists he is trying to piss off. Doesn't really make sense to me, seeing as Christians are supposed to have the moral high ground and all that jazz. It's dangerous, will only fuel extremism and puts lives at risk. What a **** he is.

[PaulMacC]

I call my weed the Koran, because burning that **** will get you stoned.

[Camy]

My RE teacher always said "I applaud the Muslims cos when they're offended, they rally together and cry out whereas Christians have a little moan and that's the end of it", referring ofc to the scandal of South Park and their Muhammad sketch!
I would say they go over the top, and get offended by the smallest most pathetic things, but that's just my opinion.


Anywho, this is obviously not going to help anything, if anything it'll make the extremists do something in return 100 times worse. and I really wouldn't trust anyone who looked like that. Apparently he's got some sort of cult going aswell, so he's obviously a nutcase.

[RandomManJay]

Although I don't approve of his actions, I do respect him for upholding his right to freedom of speech. The only thing I really see here though is a guy who has over-generalised and decided to condemn an entire religion, despite the fact that the majority of followers of the Islamic faith don't have anything to do with extremism or wish to bring about the downfall of western society. By burning the Koran he is going to offend a hell of a lot of innocent people which I don't think is fair on them since they haven't done anything to deserve it.

Then again, in my opinion, religion is the perfect example of hypocracy, so there's bound to be conflict when it comes to someones (a religions) views of right and wrong.

[Catzsy]

I think what is rediculous is a man who is obviously a bit of a finatic and who has a congregation of 30 has got this publicity. The world media should have just ignored him. This has been blown out of all preportion. I agree it is tasteless but who is to blame here? The man or the people who have made his story worldwide.

[GommeInc]

Personally I hope this pastor gets what's coming to him. He's clearly a very ignorant little man who doesn't even understand his own religion, let alone other religions. The death threats are valid, because his views on the world are clearly invalid.

[Dean]

It seems out of order in my opinion to burn the Qur'an, even if you are against islam or such, it's quite offensive.

[Storking]

If certain individuals are allowed to hijack 2 airplanes and fly them into 2 buildings, killing nearly 3000 people.. then why aren't other individuals allowed to burn a book?

He isn't physically harming anyone, he should be able to do what ever the hell he likes after what the day represents and the amount of innocent people that were killed.

It's just a book with some words after all.. it's not as if the Qur'an he's burning is the ORIGINAL book.. otherwise that might be slightly out of order.

[Invent]

If certain individuals are allowed to hijack 2 airplanes and fly them into 2 buildings, killing nearly 3000 people.. then why aren't other individuals allowed to burn a book?

He isn't physically harming anyone, he should be able to do what ever the hell he likes after what the day represents and the amount of innocent people that were killed.

It's just a book with some words after all.. it's not as if the Qur'an he's burning is the ORIGINAL book.. otherwise that might be slightly out of order.

First of all, since when are you "allowed" to hijack planes? Secondly, the individuals who did the 9/11 attacks were god damn extremists not regular followers of the religion.

But anyway, how the hell does 9/11 justify burning a religion's holy book which in one fell swoop causes offence to everyone who is a member of that religion.

[-:Undertaker:-]

First of all, since when are you "allowed" to hijack planes? Secondly, the individuals who did the 9/11 attacks were god damn extremists not regular followers of the religion.

But anyway, how the hell does 9/11 justify burning a religion's holy book which in one fell swoop causes offence to everyone who is a member of that religion.

If the threat of burning the Koran on the other side of the world is provoking this kind of a response from the Islamic world, then the idea that it is only ever the tiny minority who take Islam seriously is clearly and utterly being proved wrong before our own eyes.

[Kipp]

I understand why he would do this, but personally I don't think its right to burn the Our'an. Oh well its his decision. To be, it seems a bit harsh to do it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Personally I hope this pastor gets what's coming to him. He's clearly a very ignorant little man who doesn't even understand his own religion, let alone other religions. The death threats are valid, because his views on the world are clearly invalid.

His views like any other views are valid in any free, fair and democratic nation.

The choice is (now that the West has no faith of its own) that we either stand up for democracy and civil liberties, or we allow those with a faith that is backward to eventually subvert our views/ways of living to match that of their own. Islam does not rule the west and nor should it, whether offically or not offically. Our politicians constantly drone on about how we should be tolerant of other views/ways of life - well maybe for once they should show some tolerence to the views of others themselves.

Or is it as I suspect, a one-way train?

[AgnesIO]

Burn-A-Koran?

This guy is a pillock. If I burnt a bible in front of his face he would probably use that gun on me.

[Inseriousity.]

Lol I think there's a difference between taking your religion seriously and then taking it to the extreme. Lots of people take their religion seriously (it's their belief, why would they not take it seriously?) but only a minority take it to the extreme of blowing up a train on the London Underground/hijacking planes and crashing them into the Twin Towers

[-:Undertaker:-]

Lol I think there's a difference between taking your religion seriously and then taking it to the extreme. Lots of people take their religion seriously (it's their belief, why would they not take it seriously?) but only a minority take it to the extreme of blowing up a train on the London Underground/hijacking planes and crashing them into the Twin Towers

But the Pastor is only being proved right by the response he is getting from the political class and from the Islamic world. We are seeing effigys of Terry Jones being burnt on the streets with many calling for this death for being critical of Islam and we are seeing the politicians condemn this outright, but whenever it is the other way around (muslims burning effigys of various people in the West) we never see such a response. The very fact the US army is warning their may be a dangerous reaction to a simple book burning rather proves his point.

Islam cannot seem to take any criticism.

[AgnesIO]

But the Pastor is only being proved right by the response he is getting from the political class and from the Islamic world. We are seeing effigys of Terry Jones being burnt on the streets with many calling for this death for being critical of Islam and we are seeing the politicians condemn this outright, but whenever it is the other way around (muslims burning effigys of various people in the West) we never see such a response. The very fact the US army is warning their may be a dangerous reaction to a simple book burning rather proves his point.

Islam cannot seem to take any criticism.

That's rubbish. Islam can take criticism, and I think you are actually insulting some people with that comment. You are using the view that all Muslim's are extremists. Which is an unfair, unintelligent response.

[-:Undertaker:-]

That's rubbish. Islam can take criticism, and I think you are actually insulting some people with that comment. You are using the view that all Muslim's are extremists. Which is an unfair, unintelligent response.

Hang on a second, I have not for one moment suggested that all muslims are extremists - what I am asking plainly is why is it that everytime somebody criticises Islam they are threatened with death? why do we have protests on the streets of Islamic nations threatening people with death who dare criticise Islam? why are our politicians so protective (or scared?) of Islam but not of other issues when it comes down to freedom of speech?

As for insulting Islam, I can hold any view I wish on the matter - just as many on here condemn the Catholic Church over and over again. My personal stance is that if a mosque is eligable for planning permission at Ground Zero then it should be built at Ground Zero. If a Pastor wishes to burn the Koran then let him build a Koran. If somebody wishes to criticise a religion then they can.

It seems as per usual, whenever somebody questions Islam - they are jumped upon, just as you have done so with me right now.

[Inseriousity.]

But the Pastor is only being proved right by the response he is getting from the political class and from the Islamic world. We are seeing effigys of Terry Jones being burnt on the streets with many calling for this death for being critical of Islam and we are seeing the politicians condemn this outright, but whenever it is the other way around (muslims burning effigys of various people in the West) we never see such a response. The very fact the US army is warning their may be a dangerous reaction to a simple book burning rather proves his point.

Islam cannot seem to take any criticism.

Erm... isnt this whole thread a response? He's responding to extremeist muslims hijacking planes. And as we, the political elite and the MAJORITY of western islam, condemn muslim extremism/sharia law, we also condemn people who go to idiotic lengths to upset a minority of people, which will just serve to prove their twisted points even further.

[AgnesIO]

Hang on a second, I have not for one moment suggested that all muslims are extremists - what I am asking plainly is why is it that everytime somebody criticises Islam they are threatened with death? why do we have protests on the streets of Islamic nations threatening people with death who dare criticise Islam? why are our politicians so protective (or scared?) of Islam but not of other issues when it comes down to freedom of speech?

As for insulting Islam, I can hold any view I wish on the matter - just as many on here condemn the Catholic Church over and over again. My personal stance is that if a mosque is eligable for planning permission at Ground Zero then it should be built at Ground Zero. If a Pastor wishes to burn the Koran then let him build a Koran. If somebody wishes to criticise a religion then they can.

It seems as per usual, whenever somebody questions Islam - they are jumped upon, just as you have done so with me right now.


Islam cannot seem to take any criticism.

That is what you said. Indicating that Muslim's do not like criticism.

I don't believe in Islam, or any other religion. So god knows why you are trying to say I jumped on you for question islam?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Erm... isnt this whole thread a response? He's responding to extremeist muslims hijacking planes. And as we, the political elite and the MAJORITY of western islam, condemn muslim extremism/sharia law, we also condemn people who go to idiotic lengths to upset a minority of people, which will just serve to prove their twisted points even further.

I think he's doing more than upsetting a minority of people, he's provoked a big response for daring to criticise a religion. In doing so, he has been threatened with death - so my point is very simple, why is it that when the Catholic Church is criticised (or any other religion for that matter) the same response is not provoked but when Islam is provoked - look at the reaction.

In a democracy you have the right to upset, insult and criticise.


Islam cannot seem to take any criticism.

That is what you said. Indicating that Muslim's do not like criticism.

I don't believe in Islam, or any other religion. So god knows why you are trying to say I jumped on you for question islam?

Look at the reaction that the burning of a book is getting from the muslim world and you can clearly see why I have come about that conclusion, that Islam cannot seem to take any criticism.

Because had I questioned Christianity or any other religion, you would not go to the lengths you are doing so now to defend the faith. Again this is why I refer to the view that you appear to be taking on and that our politicians hold, which is that 'Islam is above criticism'.

[Nemo]

Look at the reaction that the burning of a book is getting from the muslim world and you can clearly see why I have come about that conclusion, that Islam cannot seem to take any criticism.

Because had I questioned Christianity or any other religion, you would not go to the lengths you are doing so now to defend the faith. Again this is why I refer to the view that you appear to be taking on and that our politicians hold, which is that 'Islam is above criticism'.I havent been following this thread, but are you serious? Burning their holy book and you dont think there will be any kind of reaction?
Not even burning one, having an entire day for it

[-:Undertaker:-]

I havent been following this thread, but are you serious? Burning their holy book and you dont think there will be any kind of reaction?
Not even burning one, having an entire day for it

You think that death threats are an appropiate response to the burning of a book?

Are you serious?

[Mathew]

I call my weed the Koran, because burning that **** will get you stoned.
+rep lmao.


I would say they go over the top, and get offended by the smallest most pathetic things, but that's just my opinion.
But do they though? Or is it simply us just assuming that they get offended?

I must admit, I agree with Undertaker about people being scared of talking about Islam and Muslims (that's what I love so much about Sociology!). Take all the crap about "blackboards" and "bah bah black sheep" for example. It's political correctness gone crazy. Would I be offended if someone was talking about the colour of my skin? No.. and I highly doubt a black person cares whether we call them blackboards or not. It's people trying too hard to be politically correct and trying too hard to please everyone - you just end up being racist to yourself.

People are jumping on each other for voicing their opinions about something which should be a normal subject. Yet apparently, everything is "oh-so-racist" these days.

I'll say it yet again - this country is ****.


The world media should have just ignored him. This has been blown out of all preportion. I agree it is tasteless but who is to blame here? The man or the people who have made his story worldwide.
Agreed. The media are to blame for publicising this.

On another note, it would be interesting if someone on the forum who is part of the Islamic religion could voice their opinion on this, so we could maybe see things from another perspective.

[Inseriousity.]

I think he's doing more than upsetting a minority of people, he's provoked a big response for daring to criticise a religion. In doing so, he has been threatened with death - so my point is very simple, why is it that when the Catholic Church is criticised (or any other religion for that matter) the same response is not provoked but when Islam is provoked - look at the reaction.

In a democracy you have the right to upset, insult and criticise.

The people sending him death threats will be the extremists. They are the minority of people as you yourself have admitted earlier in this thread. As for when the Catholic Church is criticised, the same response is not provoked. If you go back and read the first post of mine in this thread, it possibly answers this question. There is a reaction but not a big one because Catholics are more reserved about their religion. They don't shout out generally, they keep their anger to themselves or moan about it in RE classrooms! That's not exactly the fault of Islam.

[GommeInc]

His views like any other views are valid in any free, fair and democratic nation.

The choice is (now that the West has no faith of its own) that we either stand up for democracy and civil liberties, or we allow those with a faith that is backward to eventually subvert our views/ways of living to match that of their own. Islam does not rule the west and nor should it, whether offically or not offically. Our politicians constantly drone on about how we should be tolerant of other views/ways of life - well maybe for once they should show some tolerence to the views of others themselves.

Or is it as I suspect, a one-way train?
They're still invalid. He believes all muslims are plane popping, train stopping and bomb dropping individuals whos main aim is to disrupt and provoke terror. Burning the book is an attack on all the followers, most of which are perfectly good individuals who have more right to life than this silly waste of space who doesn't even know his own religion based on tolerence. You don't seem to understand this and seem to also believe all muslims are evil :/ Burning the book is an attack on the purpose of the book and those who follow it. It's not just an attack on those who are blind and stupid, like the terrorists who caused the 9/11 bombings :/

This man is just as bad as the people who is trying to teach a lesson, it solves nothing. Freedom of speech or nothing, it's stupid, when that so called "speech" has more faeces all over it than most modern day Governments. If he wants to attack extremists, he should shoot the gun at those involved in terrorism, then point the gun at himself.

Also, we have no control over the Muslim world, or the world that loves terror, and I certainly don't want to live in that pathetic little world where we're just as bad as them :/

[Nemo]

You think that death threats are an appropiate response to the burning of a book?

Are you serious?
People take religion super seriously, people have wars over it for god sake, death threats are nothing in comparison.

Also, i can imagine people getting very angry over it. Im guessing you dont know what its like to be stereotyped and generalised, but its extremely terrible. So yes, having their religion that they care about so much, and some dedicate their lives to, being disgraced because of a few individuals is actually a very horrible thing so of course they'll be outraged. Im sorry but until you realise that, you should honestly stop.

As i said in all these threads though after i make my point, i find religious stupid and pointless and we'd be better off without it.

[AgnesIO]

I think he's doing more than upsetting a minority of people, he's provoked a big response for daring to criticise a religion. In doing so, he has been threatened with death - so my point is very simple, why is it that when the Catholic Church is criticised (or any other religion for that matter) the same response is not provoked but when Islam is provoked - look at the reaction.

In a democracy you have the right to upset, insult and criticise.



Look at the reaction that the burning of a book is getting from the muslim world and you can clearly see why I have come about that conclusion, that Islam cannot seem to take any criticism.

Because had I questioned Christianity or any other religion, you would not go to the lengths you are doing so now to defend the faith. Again this is why I refer to the view that you appear to be taking on and that our politicians hold, which is that 'Islam is above criticism'.

Any religion you say it about is not right.

If people wish to follow a religion they can, the only people who should be punished are the extremists found in ALL religions might I point out.

[-paul.]

when i first saw it i thought it said burn a Korean day i thought it was a bit harsh. But i dont agree with wither 100%

[RedStratocas]

I say burn every religious book. I can't believe how much death and destruction has been caused by things that don't actually exist.

well obviously many people including myself believe that religion is pure bogus but assuming that billions of people will gladly change their entire lives is really just ignorant. you have to be realistic.


even PALIN is condemning this!? wow i have some new found respect for this woman.

plz dont. she shouldnt get credit for having an opinion any reasonable person would also have. like if she said she's against mass murder i wouldnt have more respect for her.


Although I don't approve of his actions, I do respect him for upholding his right to freedom of speech.

just because you practice freedom of speech doesnt mean you should respect what people say. i know people have a right to go on racist rants but i still think they're idiots and ill have no respect for them


I think what is rediculous is a man who is obviously a bit of a finatic and who has a congregation of 30 has got this publicity. The world media should have just ignored him. This has been blown out of all preportion. I agree it is tasteless but who is to blame here? The man or the people who have made his story worldwide.

+rep. thats what ticks me off about this, is how absolutely no one would have heard about this had not some in the media decided to make a huge deal of it.


If certain individuals are allowed to hijack 2 airplanes and fly them into 2 buildings, killing nearly 3000 people.. then why aren't other individuals allowed to burn a book?

certainly the most arrogant post ive read in a while tbh. do you really believe the terrorists were "allowed" to knock down the world trade center? thats really absurd.

obviously this man has the right to burn the koran if he wants (ignoring the fact that the fire department denied him a permit to do so for safety reasons) but whether or not he actually should is another issue. since this story has been given exponentially more media coverage than it should have, it has a new context. not only is burning the koran completely empty of any sort of connection to the lives lost on 9/11, but really it just gives extremists a great new thing to point to in america to recruit more suicide bombers. its just giving them another reason to hate us/attack us.

[Storking]

My post wasn't intended to be taken as arrogant.. it was mis worded seeing as they clearly weren't allowed to just go ahead with the terrorism :S doesn't take a genius to realise that

anyway continuing with discussion with everyone elses posts.. the extremist muslims in the middle eastern countries are clearly taking the situation and blowing it out of proportion. I just heard on the news that it's almost definite that extremist muslims will take action and cause further deaths.. they're clearly over reacting to a stupid level if they do start attacks on americans/the western world.

Attacking the whole western world whether physically or in other ways for the actions of no more than 30 odd people in america is just out of order, referring to the 9/11 bombings (seeing as it's on the anniversary of the attacks) no matter how much hatred america/the western world had for the extremist muslims.. we never started further attacks with them or retaliated by burning pictures/flags (as far as i'm aware..) :S

[Nemo]

Attacking the whole western world whether physically or in other ways for the actions of no more than 30 odd people in america is just out of order, referring to the 9/11 bombings (seeing as it's on the anniversary of the attacks) no matter how much hatred america/the western world had for the extremist muslims.. we never started further attacks with them or retaliated by burning pictures/flags (as far as i'm aware..) :S
Lol at the irony. Its out of order for them to attack the western world (in other ways i mean, physically is ofc, out of order) because of a few ppl, yet its fine for the western world to attack them? The media has blown so much out of proportion and the generalisations and stereotypes that all of this has created is out of order in itself, and the ignorance that some people have because of it is simply astounding.

[beth]

i believe in free speech and free will, but this is just a disgusting hate crime.
if no-one has respect for anyone or anything, how can we all expect to live together?

[Storking]

How has the western world attacked them? Don't see where you're coming from..

I've seen the news broadcasts and they aren't insinuating anything or filling our minds with stereotypes/generalisations of the muslim faith.

Things might be different in America where the incident is based but in the UK, yeah it's been on the news a lot but they're not filling our heads with rubbish.

[Inseriousity.]

They're extremists. They're not going to stop no matter what we do, violent or non-violent. But giving them more excuses to be able to brainwash young Muslim teenagers in fighting for their cause isn't the best idea.

[Nemo]

How has the western world attacked them? Don't see where you're coming from..

I've seen the news broadcasts and they aren't insinuating anything or filling our minds with stereotypes/generalisations of the muslim faith.

Things might be different in America where the incident is based but in the UK, yeah it's been on the news a lot but they're not filling our heads with rubbish.
Are you for real? Okay maybe attacks is the wrong word, but things like this are an example.

And are you serious? Im talking as far as what ive heard from just people in general. Its almost impossible to deny that you and a lot of people (especially in america) have prejudices and generalisations towards asians in general. I know i certainly do and im one myself, it cant be helped. I also have them with other races too, because of the media, i know it and i cant help it.

And this is what we're talking about, not really the UK, just the west in general. And yes they are, i dont see how you can't see that? Almost every news story involving an asian person that ive heard for a while has been negative towards him. Sure you might have a different opinion from what you've read, but as far as what ive read, its been like that.

[Cheryl]

How has the western world attacked them? Don't see where you're coming from..

By burning their book, or am I missing something?

I've seen the news broadcasts and they aren't insinuating anything or filling our minds with stereotypes/generalisations of the muslim faith.

They are, each newspaper or tv station or radio station or any other media broadcaster/ writer is putting their opinions into their articles or stories and claiming it as fact. Such as in the general elections, some newspapers back different parties, this is the same in all other stories in which 2 or more parties are involved.

Things might be different in America where the incident is based but in the UK, yeah it's been on the news a lot but they're not filling our heads with rubbish.

They certainly are no different here, people put different spins on stories

People should have freedom of speech, and I am all for the bill of rights and such documents, but this is taking this way to far and the media certainly has not helped the situation.
America is supposedly the land of the free and the best county in the world, but in my opinion is one of the most backwards and racist country of all.
Religion has caused so many conflicts. I think it is one of the most frustrating concepts for any atheist such as myself.

[Storking]

Are you for real? Okay maybe attacks is the wrong word, but things like this are an example.

And are you serious? Im talking as far as what ive heard from just people in general. Its almost impossible to deny that you and a lot of people (especially in america) have prejudices and generalisations towards asians in general. I know i certainly do and im one myself, it cant be helped. I also have them with other races too, because of the media, i know it and i cant help it.

And this is what we're talking about, not really the UK, just the west in general. And yes they are, i dont see how you can't see that? Almost every news story involving an asian person that ive heard for a while has been negative towards him. Sure you might have a different opinion from what you've read, but as far as what ive read, its been like that.

I haven't got any generalisations towards muslims (asians?) at all.. I have close friends who are muslims and they're very nice people so they prove that you shouldn't have prejudice against a whole faith for the actions of the extremist followers in the middle eastern countries.

And no, I don't see that. If you watch the news and allow them to change your views on things as serious as the whole muslim faith ect, then you couldn't have had very strong views on the matter in the first place.

[Nemo]

I haven't got any generalisations towards muslims (asians?) at all.. I have close friends who are muslims and they're very nice people so they prove that you shouldn't have prejudice against a whole faith for the actions of the extremist followers in the middle eastern countries.

And no, I don't see that. If you watch the news and allow them to change your views on things as serious as the whole muslim faith ect, then you couldn't have had very strong views on the matter in the first place.You seem to be unique then, and im not saying that you wont have friends who are muslim/asian, since that isnt what a generalisation is. You seem to be mixing up racism and generalisations.

And that's the point, not many people were very informed on religions and such, and so the media showing all of this doesn't help, as that is all they know and therefore generalise.

[Moh]

If they are getting threats from Muslims then they're as bad as him for burning it really.

I don't like any religion, this kinda makes me dislike it even more. Religion had brought more bad than good imo.

[Nalfar]

it's only as bad as burning flags.

burn whatever u want, it's a chuffin book.

[[Jay]]

The koran is not a violent book, its pretty mutch the same as the bible with the teachings, however because certain extremest chosse to take certain stuff and change the meaning to justify the evil thier doing does not mean its the fault of the koran. Its the fault of the reader, the koran or the muslim religion does not in any way promote terrorism. Which is kinda sad because muslims are getting branded as terrorists when they are completley againts it.

I think the whole thing is silly and stupid but I do feal that if the tables were flipped and someone said burn the bible day then it will be much bigger.

Also you cannot say he should be allowed to burn because its a book, the book means something to millions of people.

[JACKTARD]

Wow, people must really love that novel.

[Phil]

I'm not a major religious person but i think this is terrible! My Religion teacher said the guy organising this is a priest and if that's true he sould just stop calling himself that. This is a awful thing to do, it's just so disrespectful! Remember that guy who wrote about the Mohammad in his book or something? Remember how they reacted to that, how do you think they will react to this?

[Nalfar]

;6730950']The koran is not a violent book, its pretty mutch the same as the bible with the teachings, however because certain extremest chosse to take certain stuff and change the meaning to justify the evil thier doing does not mean its the fault of the koran. Its the fault of the reader, the koran or the muslim religion does not in any way promote terrorism. Which is kinda sad because muslims are getting branded as terrorists when they are completley againts it.

I think the whole thing is silly and stupid but I do feal that if the tables were flipped and someone said burn the bible day then it will be much bigger.

Also you cannot say he should be allowed to burn because its a book, the book means something to millions of people.
trees mean a lot to me but people burn them.

omg hang them.

it is a bloody story book.

[[Jay]]

trees mean a lot to me but people burn them.

omg hang them.

it is a bloody story book.

Lmao a story book ahahahaha....books like the koran and the bible are the base of todays society. Most laws come from those books. They are teachings and for many people a way of life, something they care about.

You must have something you care about from your childhood, like a toy or a present, what if i said Im gona burn that just because you dont understand what the koran means to people, how would you feel?

[luce]

for all you know i burn qu'ran daily to cook my food. they burn the bible and peoples faces and whatever all the time and we just look over it because they can do no wrong. So all power to him, although i think it will cause alot of trouble, i think someone needs to stand up and he seems to be the man to do it. It's a shame we can't all united until the muslims and fight for what is actually right rather than siding with them because we're all to scared to offend someone. IT'S GOOD TO BE OFFENDED IT MEANS YOU STAND FOR SOMETHING.

@Jay the bible is a story book, trust me i have read the whole thing as a christian and it's a story of how you should live BUT YES THEY'RE STORIES they're not a law book on how to live your lives the people who read them and believe them think they're an intimate word from god.

[[Jay]]

for all you know i burn qu'ran daily to cook my food. they burn the bible and peoples faces and whatever all the time and we just look over it because they can do no wrong. So all power to him, although i think it will cause alot of trouble, i think someone needs to stand up and he seems to be the man to do it. It's a shame we can't all united until the muslims and fight for what is actually right rather than siding with them because we're all to scared to offend someone. IT'S GOOD TO BE OFFENDED IT MEANS YOU STAND FOR SOMETHING.



@Jay the bible is a story book, trust me i have read the whole thing as a christian and it's a story of how you should live BUT YES THEY'RE STORIES they're not a law book on how to live your lives the people who read them and believe them think they're an intimate word from god.

Many laws were based on the bible and quran teachings, Not to kill etc...
Storie or not it means something to people, thats what you need to understand it has a deeper meaning then just being a book. Yes to me and you its a story book but to them its something mutch more and who are we to disrespect that?

[Nemo]

for all you know i burn qu'ran daily to cook my food. they burn the bible and peoples faces and whatever all the time and we just look over it because they can do no wrong. So all power to him, although i think it will cause alot of trouble, i think someone needs to stand up and he seems to be the man to do it. It's a shame we can't all united until the muslims and fight for what is actually right rather than siding with them because we're all to scared to offend someone. IT'S GOOD TO BE OFFENDED IT MEANS YOU STAND FOR SOMETHING.

@Jay the bible is a story book, trust me i have read the whole thing as a christian and it's a story of how you should live BUT YES THEY'RE STORIES they're not a law book on how to live your lives the people who read them and believe them think they're an intimate word from god.
Wow, how old are you? I actually cant believe you're staff with such a, lets be honest now, stupid attitude. You honestly think its just okay to offend people because it means you stand up for something? So i should mindlessly offend you, infact its fine to offend you because im standing up for something? Stupidest logic ive ever heard. You must be trollin, because i dont even know how i can respond to that without being any ruder.

[GommeInc]

@Jay the bible is a story book, trust me i have read the whole thing as a christian and it's a story of how you should live BUT YES THEY'RE STORIES they're not a law book on how to live your lives the people who read them and believe them think they're an intimate word from god.
I somehow believe you've not read it because you've completely lost the point of the Bible and wouldn't have such a poorly thought out argument as the basis of your understanding.

"It's a story on how you should live" and "they're not a law book" both go slightly hand in hand, as in a sense it wasn't a law book, but a book of understanding morals, which set the course for many modern countries and their development, either through government or through a judicial system.

Also, many many muslims don't give a rats arse. Again, many people like you assume all Muslims are extremists, when many of them come here to indulge in our way of life as it "seems fairer" and want to be happy. Muslims have existed in the UK for years, and they go to our schools, wear our clothes and so forth. If anything it's modern Islam extremism which is causing problems, and even then it seems to be a minority :/

[Bun]

bad - hypocritical as it's a sign of disrespectful, racial hatred.



good - it's a ******* book.

[GommeInc]

good - it's a ******* book.
I sure hope you're joking, that the only good thing about this is because it's a book.

Let me think of a different example of burning a cat:

bad - it's animal cruelty and disgusting.

good - it's a cat

[-:Undertaker:-]

The people sending him death threats will be the extremists. They are the minority of people as you yourself have admitted earlier in this thread. As for when the Catholic Church is criticised, the same response is not provoked. If you go back and read the first post of mine in this thread, it possibly answers this question. There is a reaction but not a big one because Catholics are more reserved about their religion. They don't shout out generally, they keep their anger to themselves or moan about it in RE classrooms! That's not exactly the fault of Islam.

'More reserved about their religion' - in other words more civilised and I would agree with you. So now you've admitted that, the only reason you (or we as the western world) seem so afraid to upset Islam is because we think something big-time will kick off - in other words we are bending over backwards for a group of religious nutcases (because yes, it does appear as usual to be the extremists) who cannot stand their precious fairytale being insulted despite the fact it is everything our western leaders claim to hate - against homosexuality, against democracy and so forth.

It must be linked to Islam just as the hatred of homosexuals in the West was linked to the Bible. The differrence between the West and the Islamic world is that the West has been able to unhinge itself from the radical elements of religion whereas the Islamic world refuses to do so (again, the belief that Islam is set to conquer the world continues on).

If it is only the extremist minorty who are kicking off then we should be standing very firm (afterall is that not why we invaded two countries in the first place? in order to spread our 'democracy and freedom'). If it is the entire Islamic world who are on the verge of kicking off then it rather proves his point don't you think?


They're still invalid. He believes all muslims are plane popping, train stopping and bomb dropping individuals whos main aim is to disrupt and provoke terror. Burning the book is an attack on all the followers, most of which are perfectly good individuals who have more right to life than this silly waste of space who doesn't even know his own religion based on tolerence. You don't seem to understand this and seem to also believe all muslims are evil :/ Burning the book is an attack on the purpose of the book and those who follow it. It's not just an attack on those who are blind and stupid, like the terrorists who caused the 9/11 bombings :/

This man is just as bad as the people who is trying to teach a lesson, it solves nothing. Freedom of speech or nothing, it's stupid, when that so called "speech" has more faeces all over it than most modern day Governments. If he wants to attack extremists, he should shoot the gun at those involved in terrorism, then point the gun at himself.

Also, we have no control over the Muslim world, or the world that loves terror, and I certainly don't want to live in that pathetic little world where we're just as bad as them :/

I don't believe all muslims are evil and I haven't suggested that at all - I believe their religion is backward and has no place in the western world. Islam is totally incompatible with western values. The burning of a book may very well be an attack on the people who read it - and if it it then guess what? we leave in a supposed democracy. The idea that you are protected from being verbally attacked/insulted/offended is this crazy idea that has sprouted in which anything remotely negative or unsupportive of homosexuality, Islam, multi-culturalism is evil.

Freedom of speech and expression is only devalued when you start worrying about upsetting people.


People take religion super seriously, people have wars over it for god sake, death threats are nothing in comparison.

Also, i can imagine people getting very angry over it. Im guessing you dont know what its like to be stereotyped and generalised, but its extremely terrible. So yes, having their religion that they care about so much, and some dedicate their lives to, being disgraced because of a few individuals is actually a very horrible thing so of course they'll be outraged. Im sorry but until you realise that, you should honestly stop.

As i said in all these threads though after i make my point, i find religious stupid and pointless and we'd be better off without it.

I don't care whether people dedicate their lives to Islam, the Catholic Church, the European Union, the Labour Party, the government, whitehall - anything. I have the right (so does Terry Jones, so do you) to insult, question or label a religion in any way that I wish. The book of Islam is not above the gurantees of freedom, he is entitled to burn that book just as any 'red neck' Christian who rejects Darwanism is entitled to burn a book of Charles Darwin.

So my point is still standing here, why is it that everybody remains so afraid of offending the Islamic world and yet so unwilling to be able to defend freedom of speech and expression when it is under attack?

You don't have to agree with him to understand that he has a right to burn the Koran if he so wishes.


Any religion you say it about is not right.

If people wish to follow a religion they can, the only people who should be punished are the extremists found in ALL religions might I point out.

The difference is that most other religions don't seem to kick off in such a way that we are seeing today.


i believe in free speech and free will, but this is just a disgusting hate crime.
if no-one has respect for anyone or anything, how can we all expect to live together?

Then you don't believe in free speech and free will if you are prepared to cast it aside in order to keep a group of religious fanatics happy and under control. On the one hand in this thread we are being told its the minority who are kicking off - in which case why are we prepared to simply cast aside our values to keep them happy? on the other hand it is suggested that if this man burns this book, the entire Islamic faith will kick off big time - in which case does that not prove his point?

He has no respect for the Koran no, and that is his right in a free and fair country to hold that view. Freedom of speech/expression laws were afterall created to defend the unpopular views, not the popular views.

[Nemo]

I don't care whether people dedicate their lives to Islam, the Catholic Church, the European Union, the Labour Party, the government, whitehall - anything. I have the right (so does Terry Jones, so do you) to insult, question or label a religion in any way that I wish. The book of Islam is not above the gurantees of freedom, he is entitled to burn that book just as any 'red neck' Christian who rejects Darwanism is entitled to burn a book of Charles Darwin.

So my point is still standing here, why is it that everybody remains so afraid of offending the Islamic world and yet so unwilling to be able to defend freedom of speech and expression when it is under attack?

You don't have to agree with him to understand that he has a right to burn the Koran if he so wishes.


I think you've misunderstood most peoples answers. Its not that they are scared to stand up against it, its just that there is no reason to. Its quite obviously an idiotic to do. He has the right yes, but like i said, its just plain idiotic. Why fuel the fire when there is no reason to, what does he get out of it? Nothing, just creates more hate and a larger divide between 2 seperate communities, and gives terrorists another reason.

[GommeInc]

I don't believe all muslims are evil and I haven't suggested that at all - I believe their religion is backward and has no place in the western world. Islam is totally incompatible with western values. The burning of a book may very well be an attack on the people who read it - and if it it then guess what? we leave in a supposed democracy. The idea that you are protected from being verbally attacked/insulted/offended is this crazy idea that has sprouted in which anything remotely negative or unsupportive of homosexuality, Islam, multi-culturalism is evil.

Freedom of speech and expression is only devalued when you start worrying about upsetting people.
Then you look at use, point and validity. It's incredibly pointless to burn a Qu'ran, there's no reason to when he seems to hate extremist Muslims. Burning the Qu'ran is much like burning a US flag - pointless and unnecessary - but apparently we hate these people so much we want to copy them. The man is clearly a stupid little boy with a title, and anyone else like him is incredibly stupid and just as bad as the extremists running around burning US flags and other trinkets associated with the western world. It's better not to take action in this form, because it's just proving we're no better. Islam is a bit backwards, but so was Christianity both in the past and in many parts of the Bible, and has a very violent back story, but it evolved. In some cases Islam has evolved, seeing as many Muslims do not follow the Qu'ran word for word, much like the Bible and Christians, they just hold the moral backstories which Christians also hold.

[Bun]

I sure hope you're joking, that the only good thing about this is because it's a book.

Let me think of a different example of burning a cat:

bad - it's animal cruelty and disgusting.

good - it's a cat

agreed, sly buggers.


but i was getting at the point of view it could be argued who should give a toss that a book is getting burned in a country which it is not prohibited from.

[MrPinkPanther]

I despise religion.

[Bun]

aye it's a load of ******** which people only conform to for a need to believe in something

[RedStratocas]

Attacking the whole western world whether physically or in other ways for the actions of no more than 30 odd people in america is just out of order

well they are extremists, eh? muslims generalize people of the west the same way people of the west generalize muslims. extremist christians/ignorant people of the west think that all muslims are suicide bombers who just want to kill everyone. they think we regularly do things like burn korans, oppress muslims, etc. there's no reasoning for either side.


How has the western world attacked them? Don't see where you're coming from..

been watchin the news much the past 8 years? obviously we dont see what we do as "attacks" but they see the very occupation of their country as a direct offensive.


If you watch the news and allow them to change your views on things as serious as the whole muslim faith ect, then you couldn't have had very strong views on the matter in the first place.

thats where youre wrong lol. people are stupid, nothing we can do about that. people will get all riled up about something they have no clue as to what they're talking about. the ground zero mosque ordeal is the perfect proof, simply by fox news calling it the "ground zero mosque" over and over makes millions of people think that president obama is financing a giant mosque on top of where the towers were, when thats not the case at all. it's not on ground zero, obama has nothing to do with it, and its not even a mosque. yet people were out in droves protesting it a month ago because of all the media coverage on it, even though the plans to build the community center (not mosque) have been completely public for more than a year. its not a coincidence that at the same time the media starts blowing up this story, everyone starts protesting. had the media not covered it at all, the center would be built with probably no one even noticing nor caring.

[Fez]

Nothing good can come of this.

[Andeeh]

This is done just to spark outrage. He can do what he likes but I don't see what satisfaction he is going to get from this.

[RedStratocas]

update; he's canceled his plans for the koran burning:

link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100909/ap_on_re_us/quran_burning)

[Axel]

I could've sworn it was the qu'ran, can't americans spell or something?

[Nemo]

I could've sworn it was the qu'ran, can't americans spell or something?
i too thought that, but ppl seemed to be going with it so i didnt wanna see dumb (a)

[GommeInc]

i too thought that, but ppl seemed to be going with it so i didnt wanna see dumb (a)
It's Qu'ran ;) Ignore the American-English :P


update; he's canceled his plans for the koran burning:

link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100909/ap_on_re_us/quran_burning)
Thank Jesus, there's actually some common sense in that little man's head :D

[RedStratocas]

there is no true way to translate spelling from arabic to english. the latin-ized version is qu'ran (how it sounds), but koran is acceptable in english because its how it sounds in arabic. the new york times uses "koran" and they're a highly regarded and accurate publication. its all the same.

[Jordy]

It's now changed from being cancelled to 'put on hold'. It seems it was only cancelled because they agreed not to build a mosque near Ground Zero, however it turns out the plans for the mosque have not been changed therefore the Koran burning has been put on hold it seems :l

[Keri?!]

This is just ridiculous, the book obviously means alot to Muslims, after all it is their holy book and the majority look up to it for advice on life and what to do.
The American's wouldn't like it if they started burning their flag, for example. Just because they don't agree with something it doesn't mean they can go around burning holy books.
It's good to see they've 'postponed' it I guess but it's still ridiculous.

[karter]

This is just senseless? I mean yes , the killers of more than 3,000 americans were Muslims , But why burn their Religious book?
That would just worsen the situation , Why , for 19 killers , they are hurting the sentiments of like 60 Million or more people?

On the other hand , the protest against the Ground Zero Mosque is absolutely sensible , they should not create a mosque near the area because it can influence the people around , resulting in nothing and hatred.

The matter is just so confusing ;L

[[Jay]]

Freedom of speach and free will have limits....You cannot say he has the right to do that because of free will?
Thats like saying a murderer is right to kill someone because he has free will?

When people say free will and freedom of speach they dont mean that to be 100% true, theres limits. If evryone did what they liked then the world would be in chaos, thats why there are laws.

If you think about it there is no reason at all why he should do this, also its funny because his a priest but does it not say on the bible to treat evryone the same, respect thier beliefs and not be prejudice? If he does do it then he should be heald responsible for the aftermath.

[karter]

;6731754']Freedom of speach and free will have limits....You cannot say he has the right to do that because of free will?
Thats like saying a murderer is right to kill someone because he has free will?

When people say free will and freedom of speach they dont mean that to be 100% true, theres limits. If evryone did what they liked then the world would be in chaos, thats why there are laws.

If you think about it there is no reason at all why he should do this, also its funny because his a priest but does it not say on the bible to treat evryone the same, respect thier beliefs and not be prejudice? If he does do it then he should be heald responsible for the aftermath.

Really True and well said

[ifuseekamy]

All this does is highlight the stupidity of religion. Islam and Christianity are the most successful trolling attempts in history :rolleyes: If there is a God this must be like Big Brother to him.

[GommeInc]

;6731754']Freedom of speach and free will have limits....You cannot say he has the right to do that because of free will?
Thats like saying a murderer is right to kill someone because he has free will?

When people say free will and freedom of speach they dont mean that to be 100% true, theres limits. If evryone did what they liked then the world would be in chaos, thats why there are laws.

If you think about it there is no reason at all why he should do this, also its funny because his a priest but does it not say on the bible to treat evryone the same, respect thier beliefs and not be prejudice? If he does do it then he should be heald responsible for the aftermath.
Exactly. All these rights must have a limit, otherwise there's no harmony or control over individuals and communities. Freedom of speech only really works when the person using it has enough brain cells to form a reasoned argument to have that freedom to express themselves. This imbesile doesn't have that right, for the reason you stated, because he himself has not noticed that he is proving himself to be a dreadful Christian and priest who clearly knows nothing of his religion or teachings provided, and by doing this event he is simply adding more tension to the problem and therefore throwing off balance and order, especially over an event that happened a few years ago and didn't involve the whole Muslim community, which this individual seems to believe they did.


there is no true way to translate spelling from arabic to english. the latin-ized version is qu'ran (how it sounds), but koran is acceptable in english because its how it sounds in arabic. the new york times uses "koran" and they're a highly regarded and accurate publication. its all the same.
Depends on what English. English-English has it down as Qu'ran seeing as the language was based around Latin. America sorted of has it's own version of English where it bases itself on spelling words on how they sound. The New York Times will call it Koran mainly because they're an American publisher, while a British newspaper (I hope) uses Qu'ran. The BBC call it Qu'ran and Koran, depending on what section of the company is reporting on it e.g. World News US is calling it Koran, while the UK version of the BBC is calling it Qu'ran.

It's just how the English language rolls (H)

[RedStratocas]

This is just ridiculous, the book obviously means alot to Muslims, after all it is their holy book and the majority look up to it for advice on life and what to do.
The American's wouldn't like it if they started burning their flag, for example. Just because they don't agree with something it doesn't mean they can go around burning holy books.
It's good to see they've 'postponed' it I guess but it's still ridiculous.

they burn our flag all the time, have you seen any news on the middle east the past 10 or so years? not that it in any way justifies it, just sayin.


On the other hand , the protest against the Ground Zero Mosque is absolutely sensible , they should not create a mosque near the area because it can influence the people around , resulting in nothing and hatred.

nope. firstly its not a mosque, its mostly a community center with a floor for prayer, a mosque can ONLY be used for prayer. secondly its 4 blocks away from ground zero, and in fact there already has been a real mosque there, even closer to ground zero, before the towers were even built. thirdly its only inciting hatred because of the media coverage of it, the plans have been public for a year but conservatives in the media only decided it was a big deal about 2 months ago because it's an election year.

[Aces]

Let's make a few things clear: Not only is the Muslim book of worship full of ****** up things, but so is the Jew's and the Christian's. You have to remember that these books were written a long time ago, back when the world was a whole lot different. Secondly, the only ethical way to dispose of a Quran is to burn it. Fail on the moustache guy's part.

Religion has no place in modern society, science is leading the way to the future.

[Inseriousity.]

Let's make a few things clear: Not only is the Muslim book of worship full of ****** up things, but so is the Jew's and the Christian's. You have to remember that these books were written a long time ago, back when the world was a whole lot different. Secondly, the only ethical way to dispose of a Quran is to burn it. Fail on the moustache guy's part.

Religion has no place in modern society, science is leading the way to the future.

lololol. Science is religion v.2.

[Aces]

lololol. Science is religion v.2.
Religion v.2 + common sense

to be exact.

[Inseriousity.]

I'm sure people said that about religion back when it was 'in power.'

[Sharon]

I can't say I'm against this as bad as it is. It's unfair to do this as you can't blame all muslims for the whole 9/11 thing anyway. It'd make a lot of people upset and angry.

On the other hand.. well I don't even have any arguments to do it so I'm gonna go with not do it :P

(Copied speech from my Religion teacher)

[Nalfar]

;6731115']Lmao a story book ahahahaha....books like the koran and the bible are the base of todays society. Most laws come from those books. They are teachings and for many people a way of life, something they care about.

You must have something you care about from your childhood, like a toy or a present, what if i said Im gona burn that just because you dont understand what the koran means to people, how would you feel?
no, laws come from common sense and evolution of man.

get real with ur bloody story books.

[Aces]

no, laws come from common sense and evolution of man.

get real with ur bloody story books.

I think it's funny how people try to spread the message that without religion we would all be savages killing each other and living under anarchy etc.

[Hayleigh]

;/ :/ :/ :/ :/

Edited by Sarah (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not post pointlessly, thanks.

[Storking]

The day is hereeee

i heard he isn't doing it but then he said he still might do it.. i don't think he will in the end though

[GommeInc]

The day is hereeee

i heard he isn't doing it but then he said he still might do it.. i don't think he will in the end though
He sounds like a 16 year old who might have sex with a dog due to some testosterone fueled madness and a few cheeky drinks with friends where you discuss random matters. Once he's slept it off and had fun with his wife (if he's got one), he'll see sense and not do it.

[danzooo]

but how will burning a magazine about heavy metal music solve anything

[luce]

so is he going to do it or what? I think he should go ahead now he has said he will because they will all be like lol you're an idiot. Just do it and see what happens, they burn the american flag and do god knows what else so i think it's time the western world actually stands up for themselves instead of being scared about what they will do.

[Josh]

Luckily, it got cancelled but the sad thing is, there will be people burning them because they agreed with it.

[luce]

Luckily, it got cancelled but the sad thing is, there will be people burning them because they agreed with it.

he might still go ahead with it i thought?

[Josh]

he might still go ahead with it i thought?

I heard it got cancelled. But true, he'll probably just do a couple secretly and come out with a video in the weeks ahead. Attention seeker/

[wixard]

OR it was all a huge publicity stunt

[Inseriousity.]

so is he going to do it or what? I think he should go ahead now he has said he will because they will all be like lol you're an idiot. Just do it and see what happens, they burn the american flag and do god knows what else so i think it's time the western world actually stands up for themselves instead of being scared about what they will do.

too late for that :D
No-one is scared over what they'll do, we just have enough sense to know it's not worth doing the same.

[RedStratocas]

so is he going to do it or what? I think he should go ahead now he has said he will because they will all be like lol you're an idiot. Just do it and see what happens, they burn the american flag and do god knows what else so i think it's time the western world actually stands up for themselves instead of being scared about what they will do.

no actually i think everyone agrees that hes a much more reasonable person for ultimately deciding against it. and its not about us "standing up for ourselves" (after all, we have been in an all-out war for the past 7 years lol), its about being the better country. this isn't about attack/retaliation, as that just leads to and endless cycle. the only way peace will ever be made is if we don't make responses such as burning their holy book.

everyone always asks "why can they burn our flag and the bible but we cant burn the koran?" well its about the context; we are a huge, powerful, first world country who invaded their third world, violence-ravaged country. we told them we came to liberate them and make peace, but then they hear about us burning their holy book. if you put yourself in their shoes, they have a much better reason to be burning american flags than we do to be burning korans. honestly i cant think of a single good reason for us to burn a koran.

[Shockwave.2CC]

Tbh I do agree about burning the quran today, but if I did like go to a group of of people who was in favour on burning the quran, I'd be classed as a raciest by muslims and others.

But just say people burnt the bible on like Christmas Day, no one would give a s*** about it, and I class that as racist.

Not fair tbh.

[Nemo]

Tbh I do agree about burning the quran today, but if I did like go to a group of of people who was in favour on burning the quran, I'd be classed as a raciest by muslims and others.

But just say people burnt the bible on like Christmas Day, no one would give a s*** about it, and I class that as racist.

Not fair tbh.

Got a few questions for you;

Why do you agree?
Where do you get the assumption that people wouldnt care?

[Shockwave.2CC]

Got a few questions for you;

Why do you agree?
Where do you get the assumption that people wouldnt care?

I agree because why not, because just say if someone blow up a mosque, the bible will proberly be burnt, or the english/american etc flags will probs be burnt/stamped on/ spat at, so they'll probs do the same.

Because blacks (not being racist here) always use the racist mark to get out of things and mostly it works e.g if a white police man arrests a black person and if a black police man arrests a white person and the white person says "your being racist" nothing will go against it.

[Nemo]

I agree because why not, because just say if someone blow up a mosque, the bible will proberly be burnt, or the english/american etc flags will probs be burnt/stamped on/ spat at, so they'll probs do the same.

Because blacks (not being racist here) always use the racist mark to get out of things and mostly it works e.g if a white police man arrests a black person and if a black police man arrests a white person and the white person says "your being racist" nothing will go against it.

So what, your reasoning is basically, "they'd probably do it so we should", im sorry but thats just ******ed.

Because there generally is racism in that part, lets be honest with ourselves here, theres still racism everywhere. But honestly, all of your reasoning seems to be "probably" and "if", nothing solid.

[AgnesIO]

I agree because why not, because just say if someone blow up a mosque, the bible will proberly be burnt, or the english/american etc flags will probs be burnt/stamped on/ spat at, so they'll probs do the same.

Because blacks (not being racist here) always use the racist mark to get out of things and mostly it works e.g if a white police man arrests a black person and if a black police man arrests a white person and the white person says "your being racist" nothing will go against it.


Wait so if they do it, we should do it? That's how wars happen :S

If people burnt a bible in the western world people would go mental. If you burnt a bible in the middle east (which is quite common anyway..) nobody really cares. BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THAT MANY PEOPLE WHO FOLLOW THAT RELIGION LIVING THERE.

However in the western world you get a lot of muslims. Which is obviously why you can get uproars.

[Inseriousity.]

hehe reminds me of my dad saying "if they jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?" whenever I copied someone at school.

I agree that the racism card is overused but bear in mind that when you're about to be thrown into a cell, you're more than likely bound to use everything you can to avoid it! You say mostly it works but I imagine that police just say the standard "if you'd like to make an official complaint... blah blah blah" which then goes nowhere.

[GommeInc]

I agree because why not, because just say if someone blow up a mosque, the bible will proberly be burnt, or the english/american etc flags will probs be burnt/stamped on/ spat at, so they'll probs do the same.

Because blacks (not being racist here) always use the racist mark to get out of things and mostly it works e.g if a white police man arrests a black person and if a black police man arrests a white person and the white person says "your being racist" nothing will go against it.

Uh huh, so you'd be the sort to throw your toys out of a pram because another person does it? That's what you're effectively saying. I'd rather be the better person and not do anything of the sort, or support it in any way possible, than be exactly like them. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a foot never works, if you are trying to better someone.

[Mathew]

I do think Barack Obama summed things up quite nicely when talking at the 9/11 memorial service at the pentagon.

"As Americans, we will not and never will be at war with Islam"

"It was not a religion that attacked us that September day. It was al Qaeda, a sorry band of men, which perverts religion."

He also added they cower in caves, which I found most amusing :P

[-:Undertaker:-]

I think you've misunderstood most peoples answers. Its not that they are scared to stand up against it, its just that there is no reason to. Its quite obviously an idiotic to do. He has the right yes, but like i said, its just plain idiotic. Why fuel the fire when there is no reason to, what does he get out of it? Nothing, just creates more hate and a larger divide between 2 seperate communities, and gives terrorists another reason.

I have not misunderstood the answers posted. My point is very clear - that you may not find yourself a reason to stand up against it but other people do - and in a democracy other people have the right to hold an opinion that is differing to that of your own and to stand up against what they see fit.

Again you come back to the point that I think fuels the fear of Islam amongst people such as yourself. 'gives terrorists another reason' - listen if somebody is going to declare war against the western world and is somebody whom despises our way of life then they are going to wage war against us regardless. What I do think you are suggesting though, is that by this book burning (an act of freedom like it or not, you know the thing we are supposed to be fighting for?) it will create more terrorists by the mass - if that is the case over a simple book burning then I would put it to you that Islam has a deeper violent element and that fear of Islam and its response to a book burning should not rule our mindsets nor the western world.


Then you look at use, point and validity. It's incredibly pointless to burn a Qu'ran, there's no reason to when he seems to hate extremist Muslims. Burning the Qu'ran is much like burning a US flag - pointless and unnecessary - but apparently we hate these people so much we want to copy them. The man is clearly a stupid little boy with a title, and anyone else like him is incredibly stupid and just as bad as the extremists running around burning US flags and other trinkets associated with the western world. It's better not to take action in this form, because it's just proving we're no better. Islam is a bit backwards, but so was Christianity both in the past and in many parts of the Bible, and has a very violent back story, but it evolved. In some cases Islam has evolved, seeing as many Muslims do not follow the Qu'ran word for word, much like the Bible and Christians, they just hold the moral backstories which Christians also hold.

And again this is my point, it is incredibly pointless to you and many others to burn a Koran but not incredibly pointless to him and many others to burn one. That is freedom and that is his right under the great document that is the US Constiution.

I love my country, the United Kingdom. Many Americans love their country, the United States. We see many often burning the British flag and the American flag yet I respect their right to do that (even in this country and in America) because although I respect the flag and the flag is the symbol of something I love - I know and accept their right to burn that flag, to spit on that flag - to do anything they wish to that flag. It does not anger me when I see them burning the flags of the United Kingdom and United States because many have practical reasons for doing so and more to the point; they have an opinion and a right to express it.


;6731754']Freedom of speach and free will have limits....You cannot say he has the right to do that because of free will?
Thats like saying a murderer is right to kill someone because he has free will?

When people say free will and freedom of speach they dont mean that to be 100% true, theres limits. If evryone did what they liked then the world would be in chaos, thats why there are laws.

If you think about it there is no reason at all why he should do this, also its funny because his a priest but does it not say on the bible to treat evryone the same, respect thier beliefs and not be prejudice? If he does do it then he should be heald responsible for the aftermath.

I am afraid that freedom to burn a book is far differing to harming somebody. The law does not state (as with traditional ancient English/British law & US law) that you have a right to not be insulted. The limits to free speech are very recognisable to anybody who values freedom and freedom of speech - the limit is between harm and non-harm.

If I were to declare war on Islam tommorow then I should be allowed to declare that (just as others would wish to declare war on Spain, the United States, Argentina, differing races, fatty foods, McDonalds - anything that you can think of). The difference between inciting harm/tension is action, and those who cross that line are the ones in the wrong. At the end of the day, somebody can tell you to go out and murder a cetrain group of people over and over again - but if you carry that act out then it is soley your fault and your fault along as you broke the law, you crossed that line.

It always comes back to this most often, and it's about time people took some personal responsibility. We see the same rhetoric you and others on here are using used when people murder others 'because of GTA games on gaming consoles' - well i'm sorry but the game isn't at fault, it is you. If Pastor Terry Jones declared war on Islam tommorow and said "everyone should now go out and kill followers of Islam, muslims" then it would not be Pastor Jones at fault - it would be those who carried out those acts of violence in the full knowledge that murder is against the law.

To think of it simply, think of kids in the playground; 'well he told me to' - no son, you made that decision and you alone carried that out.

[[Jay]]

I am afraid that freedom to burn a book is far differing to harming somebody. The law does not state (as with traditional ancient English/British law & US law) that you have a right to not be insulted. The limits to free speech are very recognisable to anybody who values freedom and freedom of speech - the limit is between harm and non-harm.



Yes but that's not only physical harm, its psychological harm as well.

Also I am not saying he is telling others to go kill other people, but like everyone has clearly said if he burns the book this will be used as an act which will only fuel the terrorist causing a reaction which could see innocent people die.

I really don't agree with many of your points in many areas, I feel you are a bit to extreme and while you try to make a valid point you fail to take into account emotions, feelings and other people, as a politician you would be great as a humanist you would be awful.

I would also like to point out the protest which was planned on being held by anti war protesters at Wootton Bassett, I vaguely recall you being against this, however if we were to link it to the point you currently are making will that not mean that they have free will as well and were not harming anyone therefore this should have gone ahead?

I would recommend considering the points you make and sticking by them and not changing your opinion to different causes.

[-:Undertaker:-]

;6734527']Yes but that's not only physical harm, its psychological harm as well.

Also I am not saying he is telling others to go kill other people, but like everyone has clearly said if he burns the book this will be used as an act which will only fuel the terrorist causing a reaction which could see innocent people die.

I really don't agree with many of your points in many areas, I feel you are a bit to extreme and while you try to make a valid point you fail to take into account emotions, feelings and other people, as a politician you would be great as a humanist you would be awful.

I would also like to point out the protest which was planned on being held by anti war protesters at Wootton Bassett, I vaguely recall you being against this, however if we were to link it to the point you currently are making will that not mean that they have free will as well and were not harming anyone therefore this should have gone ahead?

I would recommend considering the points you make and sticking by them and not changing your opinion to different causes.

Laws and ancient rights do not protect you from being upset over something somebody has said - otherwise we are going to reach the stage where you cannot criticise anyone on anything in fear of upsetting them. We get upset over certain things just as we experience other emotions over other things - that is life and legislation cannot stop that. I am against all forms of thought police, it ruins freedom and destroys democracy.

The Wootton Bassett I recall being for that march rather than against (they are perfectly entitled to march there about anything they wish) - what my point was for that is; 1) why are they here in this country in the first place (you can gurantee many of them do not work/are involved in crime) & secondly 2) why is it that at the time that protest looked as though it were going ahead yet the government would instantly without question ban a fascist march.

[Bun]

burning the qu'ran for something al quaeda has done is like burning the bible for something the kkk has done, TROLL.

[GommeInc]

burning the qu'ran for something al quaeda has done is like burning the bible for something the kkk has done, TROLL.
Does seem that way. It's pointless to burn the Qu'ran but he'll do it anyway for attention and see what the reaction is (strangely, the media following the story would make you think he'd have second thoughts). I hope he loses his title as a priest, because it's common sense he'll be going straight to hell :P You don't need to be a Christian to understand what the good book has to say about this :P

Double posts merged by dinasaw (Forum Super Moderator): Due to forum lag.

[Apple]

So did this go ahead or not? The last thing I heard about it was the Church man saying he was no longer going to do it, then on ITV news it said Burn a Qur'an day is now back on.

At the end of the day; if he feels so strongly against the Muslim religion and Qur'an (being an extremely holy Christian I wouldn't be surprised if he was) then he has every right to burn the Qur'an. There is no law against it but it would create a lot of tension between the US and muslim extremists which isn't what we need right now. However if muslim extremists were to be responsible for the death of any of my family I'd be burning a 10 foot pile of them on bonfire night so it is understandable for Americans that lost family members in the 9/11 attack to be fully supportive of the burn a Qur'an day.

[Nemo]

So did this go ahead or not? The last thing I heard about it was the Church man saying he was no longer going to do it, then on ITV news it said Burn a Qur'an day is now back on.

At the end of the day; if he feels so strongly against the Muslim religion and Qur'an (being an extremely holy Christian I wouldn't be surprised if he was) then he has every right to burn the Qur'an. There is no law against it but it would create a lot of tension between the US and muslim extremists which isn't what we need right now. However if muslim extremists were to be responsible for the death of any of my family I'd be burning a 10 foot pile of them on bonfire night so it is understandable for Americans that lost family members in the 9/11 attack to be fully supportive of the burn a Qur'an day.
Why? You're gonna disrespect the many millions because a small group of extremists? If you're saying that, then we all might aswell just go around and destroy each others sacred objects. Actually, thats not a bad idea, religion might ceas to exist then.

[RedStratocas]

So did this go ahead or not? The last thing I heard about it was the Church man saying he was no longer going to do it, then on ITV news it said Burn a Qur'an day is now back on.

At the end of the day; if he feels so strongly against the Muslim religion and Qur'an (being an extremely holy Christian I wouldn't be surprised if he was) then he has every right to burn the Qur'an. There is no law against it but it would create a lot of tension between the US and muslim extremists which isn't what we need right now. However if muslim extremists were to be responsible for the death of any of my family I'd be burning a 10 foot pile of them on bonfire night so it is understandable for Americans that lost family members in the 9/11 attack to be fully supportive of the burn a Qur'an day.

firstly, no he didnt go through with it. secondly, he said hes not against muslims, only muslim extremists. his logic for burning the burning is completely faulty. third, why would you? that seems random, eh? its not a bunch of korans that killed your family, the koran didnt tell anyone to fly planes into the twin towers. it was extremists who just happen to be muslim. youll say "oh but they use the koran to justify their ideals", but so do extremists of every other religion. christians have justified killing millions of people through the bible throughout history, but no ones burning bibles. the thing is that even without the koran they would have attacked our country, they use it because of peoples' dedication to the religion and they can brainwash people with it.

and i highly highly doubt that anyone who lost family members in 9/11 would support this, seeing as it just makes more tension between us and the middle east terrorists and makes them want to attack us again even more. doesnt make much sense.


i think people need to move away from the argument that he has a right to do it. yes, he has a right to do it, thats a fact, but thats not what the debate is about. the debate is should he, not can he. people in the middle east don't have nearly the same media that we do, so when they hear that there's going to be a koran burning in america they dont get much else context. they dont know that the very large majority of americans are against the idea, they probably think we all are looking forward to it. the media has blown up this story so much that like it or not, this crazy priest now represents all americans.

[MrPinkPanther]

It really annoys me when people say religion and religious books are the foundation of modern day law, what they are essentially saying is that they would be more than happy to rape and pillage if they didn't believe that god exists. Many species are able to differentiate "right from wrong" (albeit to a lesser extent), not just humans. It's a basic form of natural instinct.

[GommeInc]

It really annoys me when people say religion and religious books are the foundation of modern day law, what they are essentially saying is that they would be more than happy to rape and pillage if they didn't believe that god exists. Many species are able to differentiate "right from wrong" (albeit to a lesser extent), not just humans. It's a basic form of natural instinct.
Not really no? You're looking at it in just a moral stand point. The Bible and many religious texts set the grounds for the existence of legal systems. It wasn't just a divine "you shalt not kill for thou shalt be killed", there were penalties involved which is where Government and judiciary systems come into place, which took it upon themselves to make a more reality based penalty of imprisonment, fines or, in medieval and uncivilised times, death. Penalties which effect those who give a rats arse and those who do not give a rats arse, if that makes sense? :P Not all countries received their legal perception from the Bible or another Holy text, but a few did and it's believed the UK itself has a legal system based upon religious teachings. They set a moral stand point for civilisation, it's up to the civilisation to do what they want when those morals are broken. It's like a more wide spread version of the phrase "What would Jesus do?", except punishment usually is hush, rather than rub the head with oitment and fragrant oils.

[Apple]

firstly, no he didnt go through with it. secondly, he said hes not against muslims, only muslim extremists. his logic for burning the burning is completely faulty. third, why would you? that seems random, eh? its not a bunch of korans that killed your family, the koran didnt tell anyone to fly planes into the twin towers. it was extremists who just happen to be muslim. youll say "oh but they use the koran to justify their ideals", but so do extremists of every other religion. christians have justified killing millions of people through the bible throughout history, but no ones burning bibles. the thing is that even without the koran they would have attacked our country, they use it because of peoples' dedication to the religion and they can brainwash people with it.

and i highly highly doubt that anyone who lost family members in 9/11 would support this, seeing as it just makes more tension between us and the middle east terrorists and makes them want to attack us again even more. doesnt make much sense.


i think people need to move away from the argument that he has a right to do it. yes, he has a right to do it, thats a fact, but thats not what the debate is about. the debate is should he, not can he. people in the middle east don't have nearly the same media that we do, so when they hear that there's going to be a koran burning in america they dont get much else context. they dont know that the very large majority of americans are against the idea, they probably think we all are looking forward to it. the media has blown up this story so much that like it or not, this crazy priest now represents all americans.

The only reason I would burn loads of Qur'an's is to show my disrespect to the muslim extremists. You can say it would be unfair to the non-extremist muslims but in all honesty I think all religions are a load of crap so I don't give a toss. Yes they are entitled to believe in what they want and you would be right in saying that we should respect their beliefs but taking in mind all the problems religion has caused in the world I have absolutely no respect for it at all. Perhaps it is for the better, without religion things may be much more uncivilised but how do we know? They seemed to be doing perfectly alright before Jesus supposedly came to earth?

But back on topic, as mentioned; say anything was to happen to any of my family and it was a Muslim extremist that was responsible, the only way to show massive disrespect to the Muslim extremists and annoy them greatly would be to burn their holy book and make sure the media are well informed. However unlike the US holy man I wouldn't be calling it off.

[MrPinkPanther]

Not really no? You're looking at it in just a moral stand point. The Bible and many religious texts set the grounds for the existence of legal systems. It wasn't just a divine "you shalt not kill for thou shalt be killed", there were penalties involved which is where Government and judiciary systems come into place, which took it upon themselves to make a more reality based penalty of imprisonment, fines or, in medieval and uncivilised times, death. Penalties which effect those who give a rats arse and those who do not give a rats arse, if that makes sense? :P Not all countries received their legal perception from the Bible or another Holy text, but a few did and it's believed the UK itself has a legal system based upon religious teachings. They set a moral stand point for civilisation, it's up to the civilisation to do what they want when those morals are broken. It's like a more wide spread version of the phrase "What would Jesus do?", except punishment usually is hush, rather than rub the head with oitment and fragrant oils.

Laws are based upon morals which are in turn based upon natural instinct. No current religion can claim to have been the founder of laws because the fact is that "laws" existed in a primitive form since the start of civilisation. For example even in tribal regimes if a man or a woman slept with more than one person he or she could be stoned to death, this is far before organised religion. Laws like many things evolve over time in response to a countries social situation so of course religion influences it, as does other elements such as the monarchy. My point is that religion is not the foundation of law because law predates religion, the idea that you should not kill those who do not wish to kill you is build into the human psyche and in fact it is religious teaching that has often altered this as can be seen by all the religious based wars over the years. If someone honestly believes that the sole reason people don't kill each other is because of a 2000 year old text then he or she has a very warped view of the world indeed.

[RedStratocas]

The only reason I would burn loads of Qur'an's is to show my disrespect to the muslim extremists. You can say it would be unfair to the non-extremist muslims but in all honesty I think all religions are a load of crap so I don't give a toss. Yes they are entitled to believe in what they want and you would be right in saying that we should respect their beliefs but taking in mind all the problems religion has caused in the world I have absolutely no respect for it at all. Perhaps it is for the better, without religion things may be much more uncivilised but how do we know? They seemed to be doing perfectly alright before Jesus supposedly came to earth?

But back on topic, as mentioned; say anything was to happen to any of my family and it was a Muslim extremist that was responsible, the only way to show massive disrespect to the Muslim extremists and annoy them greatly would be to burn their holy book and make sure the media are well informed. However unlike the US holy man I wouldn't be calling it off.

so im assuming if a christian killed your family, youd be burning a bunch of bibles right? the thing is that we already know how to "annoy" them if thats what you wanna call it. weve been "annoying" them the past 3 or 4 decades, ya know, with occupying their country and such. really i dont see what burning the koran accomplishes? youre saying you understand why theyd do it but thats just because you understand their frustration or feelings about 9/11, i get that, but logic says it doesnt accomplish a thing. passion shouldnt replace reason, we'd live in a pretty ridiculous world if that were the case. like i understand that if a guy comes home and finds his wife in bed with another man, hed wanna shoot him in the throat, but if you look at it from a rational perspective rather than a purely emotional one, youd see that nothing good could come of that decision. the same thing with burning the koran, i understand striving for revenge, but name one good thing thatll come of it. i honestly am searching for one single reasonable good thing that could come from it, i cant think of one.

[GommeInc]

Laws are based upon morals which are in turn based upon natural instinct. No current religion can claim to have been the founder of laws because the fact is that "laws" existed in a primitive form since the start of civilisation. For example even in tribal regimes if a man or a woman slept with more than one person he or she could be stoned to death, this is far before organised religion. Laws like many things evolve over time in response to a countries social situation so of course religion influences it, as does other elements such as the monarchy. My point is that religion is not the foundation of law because law predates religion, the idea that you should not kill those who do not wish to kill you is build into the human psyche and in fact it is religious teaching that has often altered this as can be seen by all the religious based wars over the years. If someone honestly believes that the sole reason people don't kill each other is because of a 2000 year old text then he or she has a very warped view of the world indeed.
And natural instincts are? Do you have them written down, or are they your own perception of natural instinct? Notice the difference - laws are individual and society based, and synthetic, morals are also written down and are individual/society based, and also synthetic within the understanding of what a moral could be (a right and a wrong), but natural instinct varies from person to person and is down to opinion and individual actions. So no, it's incredibly unlikely natural instinct was the foundation for modern day law, they were just used to pick out which instincts should be repressed and punished, because some people may have the natural instinct to kill someone they do not like, but according to you this is perfectly fine as it's natural to feel this, when infact it's immoral to kill another human being when they have just as much right to life as you (and here comes Human Rights which fill the gap). Natural instinct could be to kill. Murderers murder due to natural instinct and natural instincts are not written down anywhere, so your argument doesn't make any sense, and your examples leave alot to be desired as they only take the view point of what you believe, rather than the bigger picture :/

Religion was the bridging gap for modernisation, I agree that some instincts like not wanting to bludgeon a neighbour to death with a rock exist down to human instinct and understanding, but natural instinct alone did not make modern day law when it has no strong foundation on which to set any laws itself, as they vary too much to be of any use. Religion exploded in an orgy of power years and years ago, as is natural seeing as most religions follow the "spread the word" philosophy, so when civilisations start to grow, they needed a way to keep order and thus laws were created, and because religion was around and at its peak, the judiciary system took reference of morals and religious laws from the 1200 hundreds. Heck, swearing on the Bible should be a huge clue, as you're effectively taking an oath saying you will abide the laws written in the book and will not lie otherwise you're breaking many laws written in the Bible and straight off to hell with you. Religion also made it easy to understand what was right or wrong, as it underlined them all which was a first seeing as hardly any countries even understood what was right or wrong. The UK is one example, and obviously the US as they did not exist :/

So to end, I shall take your last sentence and modify it:

"If someone honestly believes that the sole reason people do not kill each other is not down to the Bible or other religious texts, then he or she knows little of the laws of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and many countries across the globe, nor any understanding of History."

[alexxxxx]

And natural instincts are? Do you have them written down, or are they your own perception of natural instinct? Notice the difference - laws are individual and society based, and synthetic, morals are also written down and are individual/society based, and also synthetic within the understanding of what a moral could be (a right and a wrong), but natural instinct varies from person to person and is down to opinion and individual actions. So no, it's incredibly unlikely natural instinct was the foundation for modern day law, they were just used to pick out which instincts should be repressed and punished, because some people may have the natural instinct to kill someone they do not like, but according to you this is perfectly fine as it's natural to feel this, when infact it's immoral to kill another human being when they have just as much right to life as you (and here comes Human Rights which fill the gap). Natural instinct could be to kill. Murderers murder due to natural instinct and natural instincts are not written down anywhere, so your argument doesn't make any sense, and your examples leave alot to be desired as they only take the view point of what you believe, rather than the bigger picture :/

Religion was the bridging gap for modernisation, I agree that some instincts like not wanting to bludgeon a neighbour to death with a rock exist down to human instinct and understanding, but natural instinct alone did not make modern day law when it has no strong foundation on which to set any laws itself, as they vary too much to be of any use. Religion exploded in an orgy of power years and years ago, as is natural seeing as most religions follow the "spread the word" philosophy, so when civilisations start to grow, they needed a way to keep order and thus laws were created, and because religion was around and at its peak, the judiciary system took reference of morals and religious laws from the 1200 hundreds. Heck, swearing on the Bible should be a huge clue, as you're effectively taking an oath saying you will abide the laws written in the book and will not lie otherwise you're breaking many laws written in the Bible and straight off to hell with you. Religion also made it easy to understand what was right or wrong, as it underlined them all which was a first seeing as hardly any countries even understood what was right or wrong. The UK is one example, and obviously the US as they did not exist :/

So to end, I shall take your last sentence and modify it:

"If someone honestly believes that the sole reason people do not kill each other is not down to the Bible or other religious texts, then he or she knows little of the laws of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and many countries across the globe, nor any understanding of History."

i disagree. i think that it is instinct. most things which are illegal are either things that hurt someone, kill someone or damage, tresspass or taking away of property. the first 2 are simple because it physically hurts, the second set are crimes that affect someone's property, which causes stress and grief to people - we can see that this is a natural instinct that cats and dogs become distressed when you take away their toys/food and it's the same for babies! I'm sure no one has told a baby that is wrong for people to take away their toys - but when it happens they become distressed.

to kill is a natural instinct - but it is also natural instinct for humans to become distressed when close family/friends get killed.

[GommeInc]

i disagree. i think that it is instinct. most things which are illegal are either things that hurt someone, kill someone or damage, tresspass or taking away of property. the first 2 are simple because it physically hurts, the second set are crimes that affect someone's property, which causes stress and grief to people - we can see that this is a natural instinct that cats and dogs become distressed when you take away their toys/food and it's the same for babies! I'm sure no one has told a baby that is wrong for people to take away their toys - but when it happens they become distressed.

to kill is a natural instinct - but it is also natural instinct for humans to become distressed when close family/friends get killed.
Not sure where you're commenting on, but these still vary from person to person. Loads of babies don't care if a toy is taken away, nor do cats as they tend to have a "forget and move on" mechanicism in their mind. Like if you tell a child to turn around and you remove the toy, many wouldn't notice it's missing :P It's only when you make it obvious and turn it into a big thing, depending on the child, baby or animal you're taunting.

Uncivilised society, before any actual legal system came into place, dealt with things differently depending on the area you lived in. Towns and villages had seperate rules and governments as there was no way for a central Government to form a system because communication was impossible. They arguably had both a moral/religious understanding, or as PinkPanther said, a human instinct/understanding view point (a basic but not entirely understood view of right and wrong). This happened around the time the Bible (in the UK) was at its peak. A good example could be with King Henry VIII, afterall, I am sure it's common knowledge with everyone now that King Henry VIII was legally binded by religion and law, which is where you get the Church of England, because he couldn't divorce due to the heavy influence the religion at the time had on him and the country, and its legal system.

A good analogy could be this:

Human Instinct = Raw materials.
Religion = Used the raw materials to create a foundation e.g. gave a greater understand of right and wrong - 10 Commandments, religious anologies and examples etc etc.
Law = A building built upon that foundation.

[[Jay]]

Its important to remember that laws were not written before religion, in a way books like the Bible and Koran were the first written laws. As time went on laws were then written, when the laws were written most came from religious books as during that time many people believed in god and not science.

[Jordan]

Saw this in the news...

An Australian lawyer tore pages from the Koran and the Bible and smoked them on YouTube, days after a US pastor's threat to burn Islam's holy book triggered deadly protests and global condemnation.

In a 12-minute clip entitled "Bible or Koran -- which burns best?" Alex Stewart, who belongs to an atheist group, holds up the Christian and Muslim holy books before tearing out pages and smoking them.

At one point he lights what looks like a joint rolled from a page from the Bible, leans back after inhaling heavily and says "Holy".

The video, which has been deleted, was posted on YouTube over the weekend, coinciding with the ninth anniversary of the September 11 attacks and coming after American pastor Terry Jones threatened to torch 200 copies of the Koran.

Stewart's employer, the Queensland University of Technology, said the research lawyer is on leave following a meeting on Monday.

"The university is obviously extremely, extremely unhappy and disappointed that this sort of incident should occur," vice-chancellor Peter Coaldrake told reporters.

Stewart's video, in which he describes the Bible and Koran as "just books", is deeply hurtful to Muslims, said Sheik Muhammad Wahid, president of the Islamic Association of Australia.

"There is no need for this kind of thing, just to create disunity and disharmony among people living in Australia," Wahid told Australian news agency AAP.

Stewart, an assistant organiser with a group called Brisbane Atheists, refers to the proposed burnings of the Koran in the United States in his video.

Florida firebrand Jones cancelled the event -- a protest against plans to build a mosque near New York's Ground Zero site -- but the furore led to two deaths in Afghan protests and strong worldwide condemnation.

"With respect to books like the Bible and the Koran, whatever, just get over it," Stewart says in the video which has since been deleted from YouTube.

In comments to Brisbane's Courier Mail, Stewart defended his right to freedom of speech.

"The video was a joke video, of course," he told the paper, adding that he was smoking grass clippings rather than marijuana.

"People do this stuff all the time and if people get really upset about this then they're taking it far too seriously."

[GommeInc]

;6736909']Its important to remember that laws were not written before religion, in a way books like the Bible and Koran were the first written laws. As time went on laws were then written, when the laws were written most came from religious books as during that time many people believed in god and not science.
Damn you for putting it better :P


Saw this in the news...
Do these people just come out of the wood work? He maybe depending his freedom of speech, but what exactly will he get out of it? Nothing. We know that extremism is a hindrence. He just did it for attention, as there is no reason to do anything like this when it solves nothing and doesn't really open our eyes to anything new, other than people who love trolling/attention seeking :/

[HotelUser]

;6736909']Its important to remember that laws were not written before religion, in a way books like the Bible and Koran were the first written laws. As time went on laws were then written, when the laws were written most came from religious books as during that time many people believed in god and not science.

You prove an excellent point which I wish to highlight here.

This is the número uno stance taken whilst arguing a pro biblical ideology. In its day the logic behind what was written in the bible was sound (even if the desires of its author to pursue their own advantage was not sound). That does not change the fact that today I could take most any religion's values and views and after a short period of time construct a list of things which most of today's society would consider morally and ethically wrong.

I'll pick on the Mormon faith here. Yesterday I was introduced to an online chatroom where one could speak to a Mormon missionary free of charge. The objective of the missionary was to convert you to their religion and they would pressure you into joining their church and to accept real life visits from missionaries to further increase chance of conversion. Mormon missionaries are usually young men and woman serving 18 to 24 month intervals far away from home without financial aid trying to convert others to their religion. Curious I went in their chat and was speaking to a male and female Mormon. It only took several minutes before we were discussing ethics surrounding various rules of the religion (gender roles and gay marriage). They attempted to make the gist of the conversation as sentiment as possible although they were extremely forceful and abrupt about forcing their views upon me--views which I concluded were incredibly stupid and which made me question the sanity and stability of a person who would engage in such missionary work.

To make a long story short yes you can justify ethically and morally wrong passages from the bible by defining their age, however I fail to see why the views of a church cannot be adapted and tailored to suit the modern times of the 21st century. There's a list an arm and a leg long of people who don't consider themselves atheist nor a part of any religion but find themselves believing on a god of sorts. I refuse to accept any sort of religion or faith which condemns gay marriage, gender equality or specific roles, sex before marriage, what I consider reasonably free will and of which requires me to give specific prayers at frequent intervals.

But unlike our over liberal pan-religious Koran burning group, I am not so aggressive nor vocal about what I think.

Especially when pastors should upheld a respectable position, in which they spread warmth and happy feelings. Not feelings of provocation.

Sometimes even old people need to grow up!

[Gibs960]

Why is he doing it anyway, this is going to make them more angry so they'll blow up another important American building.

[karter]

It's Obvious that the Victims' families came up to join the organization , for them , Burning of the koran has some sense

and anyways , crashing 2 Planes in some skyscrapers and crashing 1 other somewhere else didn't make point either? did it?

[[Jay]]

It's Obvious that the Victims' families came up to join the organization , for them , Burning of the koran has some sense

and anyways , crashing 2 Planes in some skyscrapers and crashing 1 other somewhere else didn't make point either? did it?

Erm no mate, considering many of the victims families have said that they dont blame the muslim religion but blame the terrorists, it wouldent make any sense.

[Mathew]

It's Obvious that the Victims' families came up to join the organization , for them , Burning of the koran has some sense

and anyways , crashing 2 Planes in some skyscrapers and crashing 1 other somewhere else didn't make point either? did it?

Are you being serious?... :rolleyes:

[Slowpoke]

I hate religion. The world would be much more peaceful without it in my opinion. However, I don't agree with what this guy is doing. I can't actually understand why he thinks it's a good idea - it inevitably could cause another terrorist attack. If one happened, how would he feel knowing that his pathetic protest caused the death of some of his fellow citizens? I bet he hasn't considered that. Sounds like an attention seeker in all honesty.

[-:Undertaker:-]

But unlike our over liberal pan-religious Koran burning group, I am not so aggressive nor vocal about what I think.

The point is that he is very vocal about his view and he is expressing it. I'd dispute the liberal point, it's more the libertarian faction in modern terms who are the defenders of freedom of speech and civil liberties - the liberal elite pretend to be in favour of freedom and democracy yet do everything that goes against that belief.


I hate religion. The world would be much more peaceful without it in my opinion. However, I don't agree with what this guy is doing. I can't actually understand why he thinks it's a good idea - it inevitably could cause another terrorist attack. If one happened, how would he feel knowing that his pathetic protest caused the death of some of his fellow citizens? I bet he hasn't considered that. Sounds like an attention seeker in all honesty.

If it leads to a terrorist attack then we should be even more resolute in defending our freedom - the threat of terrorism is over stated anyway hence why we are so afraid to upset everyone and everything nowadays.

[GommeInc]

If it leads to a terrorist attack then we should be even more resolute in defending our freedom - the threat of terrorism is over stated anyway hence why we are so afraid to upset everyone and everything nowadays.
Agreed, and it has an effect on both sides, with both feeling uncomfortable with each other. It's like when the IRA terrorised the UK. It took ages for the UK to get over the Irish threat :P

However, on a seperate note, I think stating religion as the cause of all wars (or most wars) is a bit farfetched. Some just seem personal, or a personal interpretation of a religion. Many consider the Iraq war a religious war, but I think it's just two idiots having some beef over another person for little to no reason, and then labelling it religious (glares at Bush and his braindead view on religion).

[Bun]

It's Obvious that the Victims' families came up to join the organization , for them , Burning of the koran has some sense

and anyways , crashing 2 Planes in some skyscrapers and crashing 1 other somewhere else didn't make point either? did it?

nope you're right. planning and seeing through the hijack of 4 american passenger aeroplanes, flying two into two of the most important buildings in the business world, one into the pentagon, and one very nearly into the white house/capitol building did NOT cause fear and terror through the western civilized world. it did NOT make america stop. bravo.

[RedStratocas]

The point is that he is very vocal about his view and he is expressing it. I'd dispute the liberal point, it's more the libertarian faction in modern terms who are the defenders of freedom of speech and civil liberties - the liberal elite pretend to be in favour of freedom and democracy yet do everything that goes against that belief.

If it leads to a terrorist attack then we should be even more resolute in defending our freedom - the threat of terrorism is over stated anyway hence why we are so afraid to upset everyone and everything nowadays.

firstly, idk if we just have different views of liberals in the u.s., but here liberals are always fighting for free speech, its conservatives who want to infringe it. it was them who wanted to ban burning the american flag, block papers from releasing military information, and want to keep the "don't ask don't tell" policy. but in general, politicians only tend to agree with free speech as long as they agree with whats being said. they're all scumbags.

secondly, i understand your point, i completely agree with the fact that he has a right to burn the koran legally, but that doesnt mean he should. we are well aware of the repercussions of those actions, and the repercussions far outweigh any point it could possibly make. i could call some big burly man's mother a gigantic *****, and he'll punch me in the face. now i might think he overreacted to a simple insult that i had every lawful right to say, but really what did i accomplish? who won there? im an advocate of free speech but im an even stronger advocate of being reasonable and conscious. i wouldnt be right in the head if after i got punched in the face, i took that to mean i should keep suggesting that this man's mother has blown every man in the telephone book.

[-:Undertaker:-]

firstly, idk if we just have different views of liberals in the u.s., but here liberals are always fighting for free speech, its conservatives who want to infringe it. it was them who wanted to ban burning the american flag, block papers from releasing military information, and want to keep the "don't ask don't tell" policy. but in general, politicians only tend to agree with free speech as long as they agree with whats being said. they're all scumbags.

secondly, i understand your point, i completely agree with the fact that he has a right to burn the koran legally, but that doesnt mean he should. we are well aware of the repercussions of those actions, and the repercussions far outweigh any point it could possibly make. i could call some big burly man's mother a gigantic *****, and he'll punch me in the face. now i might think he overreacted to a simple insult that i had every lawful right to say, but really what did i accomplish? who won there? im an advocate of free speech but im an even stronger advocate of being reasonable and conscious. i wouldnt be right in the head if after i got punched in the face, i took that to mean i should keep suggesting that this man's mother has blown every man in the telephone book.

The real defenders of free speech here in the United Kingdom are the likes of Nigel Farage, Lord Pearson, David Davis(?), John Redwood(?) who can be classed under the Thatcherite-Libertarian wing whereas the 'Liberals' such as Nick Clegg, David Cameron + most of the politicians claim to be for free speech yet do everything to step all over it (European Arrest Warrant, Detention without trial - the list goes on). The view i've taken of the United States can be seen in the likes of Ron Paul, Jesse Ventura and Alex Jones who again, belong to the Libertarian faction rather than the 'Liberal' faction. In many ways Liberalism has lost its meaning, it remains to the left and is not what its name suggests; just like the Liberal Democrats who are neither liberal or democratic.

The second part, the repercussions - if repercussions such as violence follow then they should be judged within their area of the law. To stop free speech or limit it because of fear of upsetting/irritating/annoying people makes free speech worthless and prone to abuse by politicians. If you trace back through history, every dictatorship/autocratic state has used fear as a weapon for eroding civil liberties and free speech.

[DPS]

I'd burn it, idc what any of you guys say lol.

[Agnostic Bear]

Would have been a good idea in the long run. Turn Islam against Christianity, everyone wins. Christians will survive, Muslims are gone.

Not a fan of theism, especially not Islam, bad system if you ask me.

Anyone who calls me an Atheist will be thoroughly slapped.

[MrPinkPanther]

Dan please learn what "Libertarian" means. It's an economic stance meaning capitalist free markets and has nothing to do with social liberalism. As for the Liberal Democrats being illiberal...errm...what? They have created a coalition with their natural opponents in the name of democracy because it is what the people voted for, they support a fully proportional electoral system and after just a few weeks as the junior partner in the coalition they announced the greatest liberal shake up in many many decades (The Great Repeal Act). You seem to be a little confused there my friend, you have cited "Thatcherites" as liberals? How liberal was the crushing of mining communities? How liberal was the introduction of Presidentialism in the UK? You complain about the EU so much but was it not the "Thatcherites" who signed Maastricht and enabled the EU to move towards a political union without public consent? If memory serves me correctly (which it does) it was the Labour party who organised a referendum on Europe in 1975 and not the Conservative party despite being in government when Britain first joined.

[RedStratocas]

The real defenders of free speech here in the United Kingdom are the likes of Nigel Farage, Lord Pearson, David Davis(?), John Redwood(?) who can be classed under the Thatcherite-Libertarian wing whereas the 'Liberals' such as Nick Clegg, David Cameron + most of the politicians claim to be for free speech yet do everything to step all over it (European Arrest Warrant, Detention without trial - the list goes on). The view i've taken of the United States can be seen in the likes of Ron Paul, Jesse Ventura and Alex Jones who again, belong to the Libertarian faction rather than the 'Liberal' faction. In many ways Liberalism has lost its meaning, it remains to the left and is not what its name suggests; just like the Liberal Democrats who are neither liberal or democratic.

The second part, the repercussions - if repercussions such as violence follow then they should be judged within their area of the law. To stop free speech or limit it because of fear of upsetting/irritating/annoying people makes free speech worthless and prone to abuse by politicians. If you trace back through history, every dictatorship/autocratic state has used fear as a weapon for eroding civil liberties and free speech.

libertarians here are a strange but sensible mix of both social liberalism and economic conservatism. meaning they have a view of the government completely staying out of the public's business in all areas, unlike either liberals or conservatives. mainstream conservatives here always talk about how the government should stay out of our lives but at the same time tell us who we can marry and fight to make sure public schools teach christian values. and the meanings of political parties are constantly changing with time. during the civil war, it was the republicans who made up the north and were fighting for emancipation of slaves, and democrats who made up the south fighting to keep them. but by the 60's, it was democrats who made up the north fighting for civil rights and republicans who made up the south fighting for segregation.

again, im not for stopping free speech. this goes beyond "annoying" people, as we've seen since two people have been killed in protests at just the IDEA of burning the koran. im against this in the same way i don't think i should go around provoking touchy people with insults that i know will cause a bad or possibly violent reaction, even though its my right to do so. i'm not against his right to do it, im not saying this doesnt qualify as free speech, im saying it's not sensible.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Dan please learn what "Libertarian" means. It's an economic stance meaning capitalist free markets and has nothing to do with social liberalism. As for the Liberal Democrats being illiberal...errm...what? They have created a coalition with their natural opponents in the name of democracy because it is what the people voted for, they support a fully proportional electoral system and after just a few weeks as the junior partner in the coalition they announced the greatest liberal shake up in many many decades (The Great Repeal Act). You seem to be a little confused there my friend, you have cited "Thatcherites" as liberals? How liberal was the crushing of mining communities? How liberal was the introduction of Presidentialism in the UK? You complain about the EU so much but was it not the "Thatcherites" who signed Maastricht and enabled the EU to move towards a political union without public consent? If memory serves me correctly (which it does) it was the Labour party who organised a referendum on Europe in 1975 and not the Conservative party despite being in government when Britain first joined.

I do know what libertarian means, its you Liberal Democrats who have no idea of what liberalism/libertarian is or are. Labels change over time but libertarianism is thatcherism full stop. The 'crushing of the coal miners' - no, the freedom of the markets and end of state subsidies to hot beds of militant socialism - I agree not all the mines needed to close, but sadly the likes of Arthur Scargill and Derek Hatton ruined the last profitable mines with their egotisical missions of which people such as yourself still after all this time cannot see through.

But hey, lets look into the 'Liberal' 'Democrats' firstly shall we?

- They claim to be democratic with their stance on 'in or out the EU' yet have not pushed for a referendum on our membership with the EU (strangely they dropped this just after the European Elections 2009 ha!) - it would have cost mere buttons to add the EU question to the ballot paper yet they did not do so and why? because just like the other two main parties they know what the answer would be thus they are not democratic in the slightest.

- They claim to be liberal with their stance on civil liberties yet have put forward no moves on CCTV in this country, they also have not opposed the European Arrest Warrant which is one of the most dangerous acts ever put onto this country via unelected officals and they actually voted for it would you believe. Did they also not make some noise and disagreement over the Sovereignty Act that was to be introduced?

- The 'Great Repeal Act' as I understand doesn't actually repeal anything, it just replaces one piece of legislation with another piece (with with the various old english laws that exist, that process could go on forever without any real effect). The 'Great' repeal act also does not include EU legislation as I understand it, so again - a total sham and a total waste of time as most legislation now comes from Brussels.

- How 'liberal' is going back on pledges before the election and proposing the AV+ system which is not proportionally representative of votes and in some cases and studies it has been found to be a worser system.

- The smoking ban, one of the most draconian and autocratic laws passed ever and what does Nick Clegg think on this subject, here is what he thinks "Smoking ban? I'd leave it as it is," - yes, thats it just like all 'Liberals' a Liberal and a Democrat through and through. If you think the Liberal Democrats are Liberal or Democratic in the least then you are as blinded as the Labourites who think the Labour Party is for the hard workers of this country and those millions who vote Conservative because they think the Tories are hard on crime, eurosceptic and a whole manner of issues.

Secondly, why are you [a Liberal Democrat of all people] lecturing me on the European Union. Unlike yourself, I saw what a sham the Conservative Party was as one of the main parties and want nothing more to do with it hence why I openly criticise them just as I do with the Labour Party. The Conservative Party have been the worst party on Europe because they have turned out to be the biggest liars of the lot. The difference is, with Thatcher (because she did not sign the Maastricht Treaty - she actively campaigned against it and John Major famously called us the 'those Eurosceptic *******s') she woke up to the realities of Europe and it is what brought her down with the snarling, dribbling europhiles in her cabinet who wanted nothing to stand in the way of their European Superstate dream.

So while you act concerned on the subject of Europe (as most wet Liberals do so) you are not concerned at all, like all the main parties it is about tribalism and aslong as 'our lot' are in power then it doesnt matter. Here is the 'Liberal' 'Democrat' who I believe helped create the EAW;



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-0pOxvCZ_4



libertarians here are a strange but sensible mix of both social liberalism and economic conservatism. meaning they have a view of the government completely staying out of the public's business in all areas, unlike either liberals or conservatives. mainstream conservatives here always talk about how the government should stay out of our lives but at the same time tell us who we can marry and fight to make sure public schools teach christian values. and the meanings of political parties are constantly changing with time. during the civil war, it was the republicans who made up the north and were fighting for emancipation of slaves, and democrats who made up the south fighting to keep them. but by the 60's, it was democrats who made up the north fighting for civil rights and republicans who made up the south fighting for segregation.

again, im not for stopping free speech. this goes beyond "annoying" people, as we've seen since two people have been killed in protests at just the IDEA of burning the koran. im against this in the same way i don't think i should go around provoking touchy people with insults that i know will cause a bad or possibly violent reaction, even though its my right to do so. i'm not against his right to do it, im not saying this doesnt qualify as free speech, im saying it's not sensible.

I agree with the top post, but I think the Libertarian strand really is creeping back in because in Britain it has always been the battle between the One Nation Conservatives (in other words Fabians) and the Thatcherite (Libertarian) Conservatives - to echo Youtube comments, I would love to see a Paul-Ventura 2012 ticket win and Farage as PM in the UK. No more big autocratic governments and no more crippling debts - the Western world would be a true beacon of freedom and democracy.

The second point I agree, it just gives impression from many on here that they disagree with him being allowed to stage this protest which is what i'm defending.

[[Jay]]

Would have been a good idea in the long run. Turn Islam against Christianity, everyone wins. Christians will survive, Muslims are gone.

Not a fan of theism, especially not Islam, bad system if you ask me.

Anyone who calls me an Atheist will be thoroughly slapped.

Taking your opinion into account I'm assuming you know both the Christian religion and Muslim religion very well?
I don't see how Islam can be a bad system when the teaching are very similar to that of the Christian religion?
I don't even get the point your trying to make, apart from wanting to star a religious war and end the Muslim religion which would only occur in a bad action film.

[Storking]

Anyone seen this video yet?
I'd be surprised if it isn't on the news soon as it's getting more popular on youtube with a few copies of it too

contains swearing btw..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljrZYrNDgZM&feature=related

I find it really disturbing and kinda change my views on the whole thing..
they're all joking about but it's not at all funny :S

[GommeInc]

;6742825']Taking your opinion into account I'm assuming you know both the Christian religion and Muslim religion very well?
I don't see how Islam can be a bad system when the teaching are very similar to that of the Christian religion?
I don't even get the point your trying to make, apart from wanting to star a religious war and end the Muslim religion which would only occur in a bad action film.
Me thinks he was joking, but as far as I remember Christianity/the Bible mentions alot about equality such as women's rights, but not sure if Islam teaches it. Judging by the way Islam works I'm slightly sceptical it actually teaches much with regards to women, and it seems to suggest strict control over what you can and can't do, while Christianity is pretty open, seeing as it's mostly used for illustrative purposes :P It's why you get many forms of Christianity.


Anyone seen this video yet?
I'd be surprised if it isn't on the news soon as it's getting more popular on youtube with a few copies of it too

contains swearing btw..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljrZYrNDgZM&feature=related

I find it really disturbing and kinda change my views on the whole thing..
they're all joking about but it's not at all funny :S
People like them should be set alight. It's not funny, it doesn't prove a point and you're coming off worse than the people you're mimicking, especially when you dress like them. Well done to them, for over-exaggeration and a loss cause *claps slowly*

[Wig44.]

If he wants to do it, he should. Saying he is an idiot because it could provoke violence or death is extremely stupid. The stupid ones are the people who retaliate with violence. Don't condemn someone for the over-sensitivity of a religion of hatred and violence. The only thing I disagree with is the motivation to do this - if he is just in this for publicity as opposed to taking a stand against islam and its ridiculous demands then I don't support him, but I still support the image of the Qu'ran burning - being an antithiest.

[Agnostic Bear]

;6742825']Taking your opinion into account I'm assuming you know both the Christian religion and Muslim religion very well?
I don't see how Islam can be a bad system when the teaching are very similar to that of the Christian religion?
I don't even get the point your trying to make, apart from wanting to star a religious war and end the Muslim religion which would only occur in a bad action film.

Funnily enough I know enough to hate both and know that Christianity is the lesser of 2 evils. Sure they touch a few boys here and they're but at least they're not stoning women to death for sleeping around a bit.

WHICH LEADS ME ONTO MY NEXT POINT (No it doesn't)


;6731754']Freedom of speach and free will have limits....You cannot say he has the right to do that because of free will?
Thats like saying a murderer is right to kill someone because he has free will?

What is morally right and wrong doesn't come into free will at all. Free will is the ability to do anything for any reason and also not act on instinct. We have this will, there are no limits on it, anyone could kill anyone at any time for any reason, and it happens all the time. It has no limits. Morals do.

As for freedom of speech, the USA are a prime example of what true freedom of speech is: the right to say what you want for whatever reason you want.

Call someone a wop? Fine. Call someone a spic? Fine. Insult someone because they're gay? Fine. Insult someone based on anything about them? Fine.
The UK and EU don't have freedom of speech. The USA does.

Which leads me onto my next point...


;6731754']When people say free will and freedom of speach they dont mean that to be 100% true, theres limits. If evryone did what they liked then the world would be in chaos, thats why there are laws.
Laws are a guideline. They do not force you to abide them which is why murderers, child rapists and people named Keith are still able to roam the streets.


;6731754']If you think about it there is no reason at all why he should do this, also its funny because his a priest but does it not say on the bible to treat evryone the same, respect thier beliefs and not be prejudice? If he does do it then he should be heald responsible for the aftermath.

No it doesn't. It promotes inequality and bias, just as most theistic religions do.

[Note: To anyone going to infract me for "racism" go away, I am using it as an example and mean no offence.]

---------- Post added 28-09-2010 at 10:39 AM ----------


;6742825']Taking your opinion into account I'm assuming you know both the Christian religion and Muslim religion very well?
I don't see how Islam can be a bad system when the teaching are very similar to that of the Christian religion?
I don't even get the point your trying to make, apart from wanting to star a religious war and end the Muslim religion which would only occur in a bad action film.

Funnily enough I know enough to hate both and know that Christianity is the lesser of 2 evils. Sure they touch a few boys here and they're but at least they're not stoning women to death for sleeping around a bit.

WHICH LEADS ME ONTO MY NEXT POINT (No it doesn't)


;6731754']Freedom of speach and free will have limits....You cannot say he has the right to do that because of free will?
Thats like saying a murderer is right to kill someone because he has free will?

What is morally right and wrong doesn't come into free will at all. Free will is the ability to do anything for any reason and also not act on instinct. We have this will, there are no limits on it, anyone could kill anyone at any time for any reason, and it happens all the time. It has no limits. Morals do.

As for freedom of speech, the USA are a prime example of what true freedom of speech is: the right to say what you want for whatever reason you want.

Call someone a wop? Fine. Call someone a spic? Fine. Insult someone because they're gay? Fine. Insult someone based on anything about them? Fine.
The UK and EU don't have freedom of speech. The USA does.

Which leads me onto my next point...


;6731754']When people say free will and freedom of speach they dont mean that to be 100% true, theres limits. If evryone did what they liked then the world would be in chaos, thats why there are laws.
Laws are a guideline. They do not force you to abide them which is why murderers, child rapists and people named Keith are still able to roam the streets.


;6731754']If you think about it there is no reason at all why he should do this, also its funny because his a priest but does it not say on the bible to treat evryone the same, respect thier beliefs and not be prejudice? If he does do it then he should be heald responsible for the aftermath.

No it doesn't. It promotes inequality and bias, just as most theistic religions do.

[Note: To anyone going to infract me for "racism" go away, I am using it as an example and mean no offence.]

[Wig44.]

Funnily enough I know enough to hate both and know that Christianity is the lesser of 2 evils. Sure they touch a few boys here and they're but at least they're not stoning women to death for sleeping around a bit.

Christianity is definitely worse if you include a bit of history. The amount of bloodshed over christianity is something muslims can only ever dream of.

[Sam-VisualVPS]

People are talking freedom about right?

Fine.. I will stand UP and BURN THE BIBLE & Torah. Who's coming to stop me?

Who ever said in this whole thread that it's fine to burn any religious book are totally disgusting!

And WHAT PROOF does ANYONE have muslims did the twin towers?

Funny how NOT EVEN ONE JEWISH member went work that day?

Freedom of speech.

[karter]

Christianity is definitely worse if you include a bit of history. The amount of bloodshed over christianity is something muslims can only ever dream of.

I don't think You will find this in Christianity :

Stoning women if they have ANY kind of affairs with men after marriage
1000 lashes If they don't follow Purdah rule ( Not showing face in Public)
Killing 1,000 Hindus , Jews and Christians together in a train

Yes , Christians in medieval times massacred a lot of jews , They were , at that point of time , seen as Monsters . Now , most people consider Muslims like this.

The fact is , RELIGION ISN'T RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS! . The fake Islam Institutions come up with this Idea , Koran never tells you to beat up a woman , Koran never tells you to kill thousands of people .



People are talking freedom about right?

Fine.. I will stand UP and BURN THE BIBLE & Torah. Who's coming to stop me?

Who ever said in this whole thread that it's fine to burn any religious book are totally disgusting!

And WHAT PROOF does ANYONE have muslims did the twin towers?

Funny how NOT EVEN ONE JEWISH member went work that day?

Freedom of speech.

The crisis in Aghanistan , Pakistan and Iraq is just because the fact that they have enough PROOF that tells that only Talibani Muslims did this.
That's why they are finding Osama.

[Wig44.]

I don't think You will find this in Christianity :

Stoning women if they have ANY kind of affairs with men after marriage
1000 lashes If they don't follow Purdah rule ( Not showing face in Public)
Killing 1,000 Hindus , Jews and Christians together in a train

Yes , Christians in medieval times massacred a lot of jews , They were , at that point of time , seen as Monsters . Now , most people consider Muslims like this.

The fact is , RELIGION ISN'T RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS! . The fake Islam Institutions come up with this Idea , Koran never tells you to beat up a woman , Koran never tells you to kill thousands of people .




The crisis in Aghanistan , Pakistan and Iraq is just because the fact that they have enough PROOF that tells that only Talibani Muslims did this.
That's why they are finding Osama.

As far as I'm concerned, the tape where Osama admitted to the twin towers was faked (and poorly done so), Al Qaeda was originally a computer database containing names of suspected terrorists and the fact that ridiculous amunts of a chemical used in demolitions called thermate was found in the wreckage (not to mention the melted steel flowing like lava in some parts even though plane fuel can't burn at a high enough temeperature to melt the steel the towers were constructed from) is enough to convince me that the trade centers were likely targetted by the US government. Only my 'ridiculous, stupid, always looking for conspiracies' opinion though. It isn't the first time the US goernment/private agencies have blamed terorrism for murder, think the 'nam war, the assasination of JFK, etc.