US Gen. Petraeus Decries "Burn A Koran Day"

[FSTargetDrone]

Yahoo!

Church rebuffs military concerns on Quran burning

By MITCH STACY, Associated Press Writer Mitch Stacy, Associated Press Writer 54 mins ago

GAINESVILLE, Fla. – A Christian minister said Tuesday that he will go ahead with plans to burn copies of the Quran this weekend to protest the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks despite a warning from the top U.S. general in Afghanistan that doing so would endanger American troops.

Pastor Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center said he understands Gen. David Petraeus' concerns, but plans to go forward with the burning this Saturday, the ninth anniversary of the attacks.

He left the door open to change his mind, however, saying that he is still praying about his decision.

Petraeus warned Tuesday in an e-mail to The Associated Press that "images of the burning of a Quran would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan — and around the world — to inflame public opinion and incite violence."

Jones told the AP in a phone interview that he is also concerned but wonders how many times the U.S. can back down.

"We think it's time to turn the tables, and instead of possibly blaming us for what could happen, we put the blame where it belongs — on the people who would do it," he said. "And maybe instead of addressing us, we should address radical Islam and send a very clear warning that they are not to retaliate in any form."

Jones, who runs the small, evangelical Christian church with an anti-Islam philosophy, says he has received more than 100 death threats and has started wearing a .40-caliber pistol strapped to his hip.

The threats started not long after the 58-year-old minister proclaimed in July that he would stage "International Burn a Quran Day." Supporters have been mailing copies of the Islamic holy text to his Dove World Outreach Center to be incinerated in a bonfire that evening.

The fire department has denied Jones a required burn permit for Sept. 11, but he has vowed to go ahead with his event. He said lawyers have told him his right to burn the Quran is protected by the First Amendment whether he's got permission from the city or not.

Muslims consider the Quran to be the word of God and insist it be treated with the utmost respect, along with any printed material containing its verses or the name of Allah or the Prophet Muhammad. Any intentional damage or show of disrespect to the Quran is deeply offensive.

In this progressive north Florida town of 125,000 anchored by the sprawling University of Florida campus, the lanky preacher with the bushy white mustache is mostly seen as a fringe character who doesn't deserve the attention he's getting.

Still, at least two dozen Christian churches, Jewish temples and Muslim organizations in Gainesville have mobilized to plan inclusive events — some will read from the Quran at their own weekend services — to counter what Jones is doing. A student group is organizing a protest across the street from the church Saturday.

The Vatican newspaper on Tuesday published an article in which Catholic bishops, including Archbishop Lawrence John Saldanha of Lahore, Pakistan, criticized Jones' plan.

"No one burns the Quran," read the headline in Tuesday's L'Osservatore Romano.

Jones, who has about 50 followers, gained some local notoriety last year when he posted signs in front of his small church proclaiming "Islam is of the Devil." But his Quran-burning scheme, after it caught fire on the Internet, brought rebukes from Muslim nations and an avalanche of media interview requests just as an emotional debate was taking shape over the proposed Islamic center near the Ground Zero site in New York.

The Quran, according to Jones, is "evil" because it espouses something other than the Christian biblical truth and incites radical, violent behavior among Muslims.

"It's hard for people to believe, but we actually feel this is a message that we have been called to bring forth," he said last week. "And because of that, we do not feel like we can back down."

FBI agents have visited to talk about their concerns for Jones' safety, as multiple Facebook pages with thousands of members have popped up hailing him as either a hero or a dangerous pariah.

His plan has drawn formal condemnation from the world's pre-eminent Sunni Muslim institution of learning, Al-Azhar University in Egypt, whose Supreme Council accused the church of stirring up hate and discrimination and called on other American churches speak out against it. Last month, Indonesian Muslims demonstrated outside the U.S. embassy in Jakarta, threatening violence if Jones goes through with it.

"Whenever there's a perception that America is somehow anti-Muslim, that harms our image and interests around the Islamic world," said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American Islamic Relations, a Washington-based Muslim civil rights group that has worked to discredit Jones and counter his message.

___

Associated Press Writer Kimberly Dozier in Kabul, Afghanistan, contributed to this report.

Well, they have the "right" but I don't see how this helps anyone. The only good to come of this is that it has spawned counter-events planned, consisting of all-inclusive religious meetings of Jews, Christians and Muslims.

[General Zod]

The Quran, according to Jones, is "evil" because it espouses something other than the Christian biblical truth and incites radical, violent behavior among Muslims.

Right, and the Bible doesn't incite radical, violent behavior among Christians too? Then again religious tards aren't known for realizing their own hypocrisy.

[Highlord Laan]

I should gather up some friends and burn a pile of bibles, then put it on Youtube. Just to piss these cretins off.

[Mr Bean]

I should gather up some friends and burn a pile of bibles, then put it on Youtube. Just to piss these cretins off.

No, no you should not. The way to show bigot idiots the error of their ways is not to become yourself a bigoted idiot.

And of course Petraeus is going to decry it. Not being a mouth breathing moron he does understand the basics of diplomacy. And having been in Iraq and A-Stan for several years he would be very familiar with the three refrains of terrorist propaganda to recruit new terrorists/rebels.

1. America is evil, look at all the evil things they do like kill innocents and torture people
2. America hates Islam and seeks it's destruction, this is a holy war between the Muslim world and the Christian world
3. America wants our yummy oil, and could care less, they are just here to take your oil just like the British before them

Having a burn a Koran days falls squarely into reason number 2 why you should fight the Americans. Thus he is going to be against it.

[Themightytom]

Um how is not getting a fire permit now protected under first amendment rights?

Can I just throw Going Rogue into my bonfires now and forgo the paperwork claiming its a religious ceremony?

[Kanastrous]

Maybe a clever DA could figure out how to frame this as a 'hate crime' and prosecute it accordingly, should it come to pass. If burning a cross to intimidate or provoke members of a racial group can be considered a 'hate crime' perhaps the same could be said of burning books to intimidate or provoke members of a religious group.

[General Zod]

Maybe a clever DA could figure out how to frame this as a 'hate crime' and prosecute it accordingly, should it come to pass. If burning a cross to intimidate or provoke members of a racial group can be considered a 'hate crime' perhaps the same could be said of burning books to intimidate or provoke members of a religious group.

Never happen. Burning the Koran would fall under the same protection as burning the flag under the first amendment. The only real issue I take with this is the hypocritical reasons for it, otherwise I'd say burn away.

[Kanastrous]

I don't know. Singling out a particular religious group's text for burning - particularly when it's an act expressly designed to 'send a message' to that group - might fall into a different category than burning the national flag. How is burning a 'holy text' with the intent of intimidation or offense different than burning the cross, which is not necessarily under First Amendment protection?

[General Zod]

I don't know. Singling out a particular religious group's text for burning - particularly when it's an act expressly designed to 'send a message' to that group - might fall into a different category than burning the national flag. How is burning a 'holy text' with the intent of intimidation or offense different than burning the cross, which is not necessarily under First Amendment protection?

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/ ... eology.htm

There is actually some precedent for permitting cross burning. The problem here is proving intent; it's not like they're burning the Koran in front of a mosque.

There were two important issues before the Supreme Court, corresponding to the two incidents that were consolidated in this case. In the first incident, Barry Black burned a cross at a Ku Klux Klan rally held on private property, with the owner's consent. Black was prosecuted for violating a Virginia law that bans cross-burning with the intent "to intimidate any person or group of persons," but it wasn't clear that he had this intention: He may have been primarily trying to send a message of racist solidarity to his fellow Klansmen. The judge, however, instructed the jury — pursuant to Virginia law — that any cross-burning is "by itself … sufficient evidence from which you may infer the required intent." Black was thus essentially prosecuted for the cross-burning itself.

This, the Supreme Court held, was unconstitutional, and in terms that strongly reaffirm that even hateful, bigoted speech is constitutionally protected. Burning a cross is considered "speech" for First Amendment purposes, just like displaying a cross, burning a flag, or flying a flag. These forms of expression are very different morally, but they are all statements in a well-established language of symbols — for over 70 years, the Supreme Court has said that symbolic expression is covered by the free speech guarantee. And burning a cross as a statement of racist ideology and solidarity, Justice O'Connor's opinion said (and at least seven Justices either explicitly or implicitly endorsed this), was "lawful political speech at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect." It is evil speech; but the First Amendment protects even evil ideas.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I should gather up some friends and burn a pile of bibles, then put it on Youtube. Just to piss these cretins off.

No, no you should not. The way to show bigot idiots the error of their ways is not to become yourself a bigoted idiot.

I fail to see how counter-protesting bigotry by burning the bigots moral codebook is bigotry.

[Kanastrous]

Well, at the very least you create an opening for them the screech bigotry! Why give them the platform?

[Mr Bean]

I should gather up some friends and burn a pile of bibles, then put it on Youtube. Just to piss these cretins off.

No, no you should not. The way to show bigot idiots the error of their ways is not to become yourself a bigoted idiot.

I fail to see how counter-protesting bigotry by burning the bigots moral codebook is bigotry.

Let me try and help you out

Group 1: I think all Muslims are violent radicals and we should outlaw Islam in America!
Group 2: I think your a bigoted idiot therefor to protest I will do the same thing your doing, but with bibles!
Outside observer:What's the last group that got famous for burning books it did not agree with hmmmm...

Burning a book is done only when you fear what that book contains. You are saying by your act that you fear that book so much you must destroy it. Such fear is irrational, and the mark of utter intolerance, thus the mark of a bigot.

[wautd]

Another day, another event where religious fundies are pissing off religious fundies. Lest we forget the Abrahamic religions are a shit stain on human history.

[FSTargetDrone]

Nothing is served by doing this other than a "safe" way for these clowns to demonstrate how tough they are by destroying a pile of books. Frankly, if all these religions metaphorically crumbled to dust tomorrow, it wouldn't be soon enough for me. But, they exist and are important to a lot of people, so why escalate the situation with a pissant little attempt to stick a flaming brand in the eye of a major religion (at a particularly heated time in current events). I am generally uncomfortable with burning books and all this will do is antagonize a lot of people.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Such fear is irrational...

Absolutes are irrational, it is perfectly understandable to fear something, especially when that something is preaching hate and can hardly be classified as bigotry.

[Jaepheth]

Book burnings never made sense to me. I mean, you have to buy the books you burn, right? I bet publishers love book burnings.

I'd suggest: National Leave a copy of "The God Delusion" in a Pew Day

Better because:
1. Non-violent, though admittedly passive-aggressive
2. Royalties go to people more in line with your own ideology
3. Non-polluting. Well, the books will likely end up in a landfill, but that's better than becoming smoke in the air.
4. There's actually a slim chance you might change someone's mind.

[Broomstick]

There is actually some precedent for permitting cross burning. The problem here is proving intent; it's not like they're burning the Koran in front of a mosque.

Proving intent is no problem - the fucker was just on TV explaining his intent very clearly. He's doing this to stir shit up.

Like all other rights, the First Amendment protecting free speech and religion is not unlimited. Your rights end where other peoples' begin. It's not legal to cry falsely "fire" in a crowded theater, or to use your free speech rights to incite a riot. If this asshat's exercise of his speech rights causes harm then he is not automatically off the hook. Actions have consequences.

You're free to hate mu Muslims. You are not free to deliberately engage in actions that piss off Muslims and thereby endanger either our troops or lend support to our enemies.

It really doesn't help that Eid happens to fall on September 11 this year, really it doesn't.

[Alyeska]

No, no you should not. The way to show bigot idiots the error of their ways is not to become yourself a bigoted idiot.

Burning a bible is not in itself a bigoted act. The intentions behind it show if it is bigoted or not.

[Mr Bean]

No, no you should not. The way to show bigot idiots the error of their ways is not to become yourself a bigoted idiot.

Burning a bible is not in itself a bigoted act. The intentions behind it show if it is bigoted or not.

I will admit burning a bible is in and of itself not a bigoted act. For example, I won't call you a bigot for burning your bible to keep yourself warm during the winter least you freeze to death. Or setting one ablaze as a signal fire for rescue craft. Or even.. emergency bathroom tissue. But there's a difference between burning a bible because nothing else is handy (Or because you just happen to have a crate of King James editions you don't know what to do with) and copying the actions of a bigoted asshole just swapping out the parts where he burns Korans with you burning Bibles. Something Schatten fails to grasp because he's bought into the actions of one sect of Islam=All of Islam. Something I'm sure he does for the other Abraham's religions as well.

[Alyeska]

I will admit burning a bible is in and of itself not a bigoted act. For example, I won't call you a bigot for burning your bible to keep yourself warm during the winter least you freeze to death. Or setting one ablaze as a signal fire for rescue craft. Or even.. emergency bathroom tissue. But there's a difference between burning a bible because nothing else is handy (Or because you just happen to have a crate of King James editions you don't know what to do with) and copying the actions of a bigoted asshole just swapping out the parts where he burns Korans with you burning Bibles. Something Schatten fails to grasp because he's bought into the actions of one sect of Islam=All of Islam. Something I'm sure he does for the other Abraham's religions as well.

The Christian guy is burning Koran's because of an apparent hate of Muslims as a whole. This is rather clear when you see he states Islam is of the Devil. So his actions are bigoted on just about every level imaginable.

Burning a Bible in counter protest does not necessarily equate the same thing. It can be described as a "Oh yeah? Well fuck you!". While hateful, its not bigoted in the traditional sense. Its very specific dislike aimed at a specific individual. I think the guy is a loon, but not much else. I myself would have no problem burning bibles and asking him how it makes him feel just to make the point that his actions do have consequences. I don't hate him, I just have a mild dislike of his loony tendencies.

If you want to get technical on the term bigot, we ourselves can be described bigots merely for disliking the guy.

Burning a Koran because you hate Muslims. Bigoted
Burning a Koran because you hate a guy who happens to be Muslim and you want to pis him off. Asshole.
Burning a Koran because you want to demonstrate the need to maintain freedom of speech no matter how offensive you might find said speech. Idealistic, and possibly stupid.

[hongi]

Ironically, I think burning a Qur'an is the proper way to dispense of it.

[Darth Raptor]

How is that ironic? The folding and burning of an old flag by soldiers is considered more respectful than just throwing it out, but a flag burning by angry protesters is still a flag burning. White folks got idols they hump, too.

Anyway, there might be a religion worse then Islam on some planet somewhere, but it's only worse than Christianity by a hair's breadth and mostly due to accidents of world history and geography. Modern Christians don't have the moral high ground, but if you'll notice, they don't even care. Evangelical Christians don't criticize Islam for being an abhorrent pile of culture-murdering trash, but for being an incorrect religion. You don't hear stuff like "it exploits women" or "it promotes religious violence" because those are things they wish they could still get away with. You hear "it's from the devil". So fuck them, and because they're specifically out to stir shit up, fuck them twice.

I was going to qualify that some more, but I guess book burnings are just never a good sign.

[Akkleptos]

How many here have acually bothered reading through the bloody thing?

*raises hand*
I did, and I found it really supports (and decrees) several forms of violence to "unbelievers" (read "infidels"), not to mention women.

Oddly enough, it does encourage believers to have special considerations with the "People of the Book" (the Jews).

Of course, nothing in it is more radical than what we could read from the Old Testament in any Bible. But we have to consider that Islam, as a culture, is waaaay behing Christendom, development-wise...

With this I mean that while the Western world has had a couple of thousands of years to see its nations grow beyond religious fundamentalism (well, with some important exceptions), the Islamic world is still in what we could call its "Dark Ages", when theocratic states were still viable.

If our -mostly Christian- western nations were to take their holy book as seriously as they did not 600 years ago, then we would have it all set up for Crusades again.

[Lusankya]

By "Islamic world", do you mean the Middle East and Central Asia? Because I think that Indonesia - the nation with the world's largest Muslim population - would take offence at being called a "theocratic state".

Personally, I put the shittiness of various Muslims down to the fact that they're poor people living in a desert/mountain/mountainous desert, rather than due anything intrinsically worse about their religion.

Repeat after me. "Islam is not a culture."

[Akkleptos]

By "Islamic world", do you mean the Middle East and Central Asia? Because I think that Indonesia - the nation with the world's largest Muslim population - would take offence at being called a "theocratic state".

It was a faux pas not to mention Indonesia, of course. And I know they have the largest Muslim population in the world. But even they do have riots and problems derived from Islamic fanaticism.

What I mean is that if predominantely Christian Western states were to take the Bible as seriously as so many of the predominantely Muslim states around the world, we'd be in for a real shitstorm. But they are not. We've -for the most part- "outgrown" religious fundamentalism at a supracultural level. Whereas most of the countries with a Muslim majority, well, haven't.

1. The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.
2. These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population: Edwardian culture; Japanese culture; the culture of poverty.
3. These patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression: religious culture in the Middle Ages; musical culture; oral culture.
4. The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization.

Albeit not a uniform one -much like Christendom-, Islam is a culture, as it involves much more -and it has a lot more implications- than a simple supernatural belief.

Repeat after me: "Islam IS a culture"