• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US church defiant despite condemnation of Koran burning

winston53660 said:
Are they planning on burning bibles at the Mosque or something?
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure you described what would be a wet dream of coveted victimhood for a few posters on this thread.
 
winston53660 said:
Are they planning on burning bibles at the Mosque or something?
Click to expand...

No. Both cases involve the legal right to go through with the action of burning the Korans or building the Mosque with the moral argument to do so in question.

Get it now?
 
texmaster said:
Yes I did and you didn't address it. When you do, we'll talk.
Click to expand...
:roll:

What was your precious little point that I didn't address?
 
texmaster said:
No. Both cases involve the legal right to go through with the action of burning the Korans or building the Mosque with the moral argument to do so in question.

Get it now?
Click to expand...

And? This dude shouldn't burn the Koran, it's a dick move. But he's free to do it and most likely will; so we'd better just get used to it. Same with the mosque. They shouldn't put it there, it's a dick move. But they're free to do it and most likely will; so we'd better just get used to it.
 
Ikari said:
And? This dude shouldn't burn the Koran, it's a dick move. But he's free to do it and most likely will; so we'd better just get used to it. Same with the mosque. They shouldn't put it there, it's a dick move. But they're free to do it and most likely will; so we'd better just get used to it.
Click to expand...

proving that dicks are dicks no matter the religious persuasion.
 
ric27 said:
Do you think Islam is incompatible with Western values?
Click to expand...

NO. I think Western values are powerful enough to overwhelm Islamic values. That's WHY extremeist fundamentalist Muslims fear us so very much. Muslims in the west tend to take on far more liberal values when they are exposed to western culture.

Why do you consider our values so weak and puny that they are under threat of serious harm from a bunch of neanderthals in the middle east who want to go back to the dark ages?
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
NO. I think Western values are powerful enough to overwhelm Islamic values. That's WHY extremeist fundamentalist Muslims fear us so very much. Muslims in the west tend to take on far more liberal values when they are exposed to western culture.

Why do you consider our values so weak and puny?
Click to expand...

If Western values "overwhelm" them, doesn't that imply they are indeed incompatible, just more powerful?
 
Harshaw said:
If Western values "overwhelm" them, doesn't that imply they are indeed incompatible, just more powerful?
Click to expand...

Western values aren't incompatible with any group of humans. All humans want to be free, to speak, live, and act freely without undue governmental controls.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Western values aren't incompatible with any group of humans.
Click to expand...

You're not talking about mere groups of generic people; you're talking about Islam, which is a set of principles and values, not biology. Any set of values has incompatibilities with different sets of values. And in fact, the Islamic values embodied in Sharia are absolutely incompatible. Not that every Muslim subscribes to Sharia, but it's an example.


All humans want to be free, to speak, live, and act freely without undue governmental controls.
Click to expand...

That is demonstrably untrue. Every oppressive regime always has genuine support of at least a portion of the population at large.

And even in our own society, there are plenty who have no problems with severe restrictions on ALL of those freedoms. Heck, even among membership HERE.
 
Harshaw said:
You're not talking about mere groups of generic people; you're talking about Islam, which is a set of principles and values, not biology. Any set of values has incompatibilities with different sets of values. And in fact, the Islamic values embodied in Sharia are absolutely incompatible. Not that every Muslim subscribes to Sharia, but it's an example.
Click to expand...

Good points. Okay. I consider western values at least slightly incompatible with all forms of fundamentalism. Sharia law is no different from what Christian Reconstructionists would like to see in the U.S. However, the rule of law is a powerful thing, and exposure to western values tends to have more impact on them than they have on us.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Good points. Okay. I consider western values at least slightly incompatible with all forms of fundamentalism. Sharia law is no different from what Christian Reconstructionists would like to see in the U.S. However, the rule of law is a powerful thing, and exposure to western values tends to have more impact on them than they have on us.
Click to expand...

A quick pointer.... Islam does not tolerate Judaism, Christianity, Catholicism or any other belief. Look it up: the definition of peace in terms of Islam is "the world under Islamic rule". Until that happens, all else is jihad. There is no peace among differing beliefs so far as Islam is concerned. That's why the Imams never condemn acts of terrorism commited against "infidels".
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Good points. Okay. I consider western values at least slightly incompatible with all forms of fundamentalism. Sharia law is no different from what Christian Reconstructionists would like to see in the U.S. However, the rule of law is a powerful thing, and exposure to western values tends to have more impact on them than they have on us.
Click to expand...

Well I would say that your base statement that Western values are not incompatible with any group of humans is true. At the base, we strive to recognize the base rights and liberties of the individual. Forms of government though can be incompatible with Western values; particularly theocracy which is an abundant government form in the ME.
 
ric27 said:
A quick pointer.... Islam does not tolerate Judaism, Christianity, Catholicism or any other belief. Look it up: the definition of peace in terms of Islam is "the world under Islamic rule". Until that happens, all else is jihad. There is no peace among differing beliefs so far as Islam is concerned. That's why the Imams never condemn acts of terrorism commited against "infidels".
Click to expand...
Yes, but I don't consider itinerant goatherders from the middle east a tangible threat. We outnumber them in weaponry, firepower, and forces. So, I'm not sitting here shaking in my boots about the day that we're invaded by the great boogeyman Allah, like you so clearly are.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Yes, but I don't consider itinerant goatherders from the middle east a tangible threat. We outnumber them in weaponry, firepower, and forces. So, I'm not sitting here shaking in my boots about the day that we're invaded by the great boogeyman Allah, like you so clearly are.
Click to expand...

Its a no win situation, as you begin to look at it. Persecute = Radicalize and ramifications, Kill 'Em All and let Allah Sort 'em Out = radicalize and ramifications, trade embargos = radicalize and ramifications, do nothing and tolerate = radicalize and ramifications.

So... when its a no-win situation, it becomes survival vs. non-survival. If that falls under the appearance of intolerance; then that's what it has to be. I'm intolerant of not surviving due to tolerance.
 
This church is good buddies with the Westboro Baptist Church, the group that protests funerals of our dead soldiers. They're burning religious texts out of hatred, something General Petraeus says is going to make his job harder overseas and put more of our guys in danger.

That some people could hate our troops so much makes me sick.

edit: Google cache version of this church's blog, as their actual site seems to be getting hammered now, unsurprisingly.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ter+westboro+baptist&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
 
Last edited:
ric27 said:
Its a no win situation, as you begin to look at it. Persecute = Radicalize and ramifications, Kill 'Em All and let Allah Sort 'em Out = radicalize and ramifications, trade embargos = radicalize and ramifications, do nothing and tolerate = radicalize and ramifications.

So... when its a no-win situation, it becomes survival vs. non-survival. If that falls under the appearance of intolerance; then that's what it has to be. I'm intolerant of not surviving due to tolerance.
Click to expand...

Do you really fear that your survival is threatened? SERIOUSLY? God help us all.
 
ric27 said:
That's why the Imams never condemn acts of terrorism commited against "infidels".
Click to expand...

i would think twice before stating such generalization..

Muslims Condemn Terrorist Attacks

and plus, do u even know the meaning of Jihad. Jihad refers to "struggle" and an internal one for the first part..

coping with hunger, poverty etc are also forms of jihad...
 
GodsWrath said:
i would think twice before stating such generalization..

Muslims Condemn Terrorist Attacks

and plus, do u even know the meaning of Jihad. Jihad refers to "struggle" and an internal one for the first part..

coping with hunger, poverty etc are also forms of jihad...
Click to expand...

Sure it means struggle within but it also means outward struggle and the OUTWARD struggle is actually the primary struggle, inward is secondary. Oh and Mein Kompf also means my struggle...

In premodern times, jihad meant mainly one thing among Sunni Muslims, then as now the Islamic majority. It meant the legal, compulsory, communal effort to expand the territories ruled by Muslims (known in Arabic as dar al-Islam) at the expense of territories ruled by non-Muslims (dar al-harb). In this prevailing conception, the purpose of jihad is political, not religious. It aims not so much to spread the Islamic faith as to extend sovereign Muslim power (though the former has often followed the latter). The goal is boldly offensive, and its ultimate intent is nothing less than to achieve Muslim dominion over the entire world.

The problem is there is no CLEAR path to paradise in the Qu'ran from doing good or being a good muslim, there is however a GUARANTEED entrance to paradise for muslims who give their life in a jihad to spread Islam. So you tell em which one is superior.

according to former PLO terrorist Walid Shoebat "It is a fallacy that 'jihad' represents an 'inner struggle'. [There are] over one hundred quotes by Muhammad [in the Qur'an] referring to jihad by the sword, by killing, by taking no prisoners, by forced conversion, or by enslavement - [and] only one quote referring to an internal struggle"



Qu'ran 3:169 - And reckon not those who are killed in Allah's way as dead; nay, they are alive (and) are provided sustenance from their Lord
4:74 - Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward.
 
Last edited:
Andalublue said:
BBC News - US church defiant despite condemnation of Koran burning

Is someone trying to muscle in on the Westboro BC's territory? I'm sure US troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan will be delighted people are making such good use of the freedom of speech they are trying to defend with their lives.

Can or should anything be done to stop this calculated attempt to stir up trouble? Is this like calling 'fire!' in a packed theatre? Or is free speech just too precious?
Click to expand...

You know - I've held that view since this crap started the othe week. . . I mentioned that to my husband and he said "bring it on - get this **** the **** over with"

Take that how you want it.
 
Deuce said:
This church is good buddies with the Westboro Baptist Church, the group that protests funerals of our dead soldiers. They're burning religious texts out of hatred, something General Petraeus says is going to make his job harder overseas and put more of our guys in danger.

That some people could hate our troops so much makes me sick.
Click to expand...

Do those assholes have a right to burn a Koran or a pile of Koran's under the 1st Amendment?

Yes or no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom