Remembering 9-11 (merged anniversary thread)

[PuckChaser]

In the end, "our" idiot is off the front page, and hopefully finds himself buried in obscurity as an odd footnote of history.

I sincerely hope that he doesn't even make a footnote.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I also put some or a good portion of blame for this fiasco on MSM.  They created this monster, fed it's ego and gave it life.  If they would self police to a greater degree as they once did on a regular basis and not give air time to air heads perhaps this crap would not happen.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Thread has been cleaned. Keep it on topic.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Foxhound]

I hope this story has legs.  BZ to the young man.

Quote:
'Dude, you have no Qur'an!'  8)

 

[PuckChaser]

I hope this story has legs.  BZ to the young man.

Quote:
'Dude, you have no Qur'an!'  8)

Not big on the guy's haircut, but his actions are an example to everyone.

 

[Nemo888]

I was rather impressed that the preacher burning it publicly admitted he never bothered to read it. 

Even I've read it. Scared to say what I thought of the latter chapters though.

 

[readytogo]

IM having a hard time finding the info, did the pin eyed preacher actually light one on fire?

 

[bdave]

IM having a hard time finding the info, did the pin eyed preacher actually light one on fire?

Supposedly, and I may be wrong about this, the preacher did not set anything on fire.
However, certain individuals not related to said preacher did and it says on yahoo news that one of them was recently fired from his job.
Hope that book burning was worth it.

 

[A-ryathker]

go to youtube.com and type in Bible burnings. Where are the voices of tolerance and the champions of love of peace and the advocates for a hate free society on these guys? No one cares and rightfully so. Also this isnt a free speech issue burning something isnt speaking its doing an act. As long as your not violating fire safety laws, in the free world go ahead and burn whatever you want without worrying someone may get pissed and kill you. Of course depending on what you burn you may end up dying of old age alone, unloved and unwanted  but if thats what you want go for it.........

 

[Rogo]

But there is a difference between burning a holy book in your private dwelling in a fire place (violating no fire laws) and keeping it in a private setting and... creating a public stir and making huge signs and trying to justify your freedom to act this way against another's freedom from arbitrary harassment.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Imagine if we burned every holy book?

 

[Rogo]

SPOILER ALERT!


Isn't that somewhat the premise for that Denzel movie Book of Eli?
Or almost the exact premise?

 

[readytogo]

SPOILER ALERT 2.0

yes but in the movie the holy burning had happened so long ago(along with every other book they could get their hands on) that nobody even knew what a holy book was or why it mattered???

 

[Edward Campbell]

Imagine if we burned every holy book?

Even this? There's a problem with the word 'holy' or 'sacred;' who gets to decide? I do not regard the Tao Te Ching as either holy or sacred because many scholars have decided, and I am satisfied with their decision, that the religious components of Taoism are quite secondary to its philosophical components. In fact, as far as I know, Lao Tsu did not intend that his Tao Te Ching (or Daodejing, if you prefer) should be 'sacred' nor that he should be a god. He was a philosopher, akin to and a near contemporary of Confucius, who focused his thinking on ways to achieve spiritual balance and to comprehend (rather than understand) the universe and our place in it.

Let's not burn any books. The 'freedom of speech' (actually freedom of expression - which includes e.g. burning flags, displaying a crucifix in a jar of urine and so on) we many of you have pledged to defend as a fundamental right (but not a natural right, I think) only counts when the most reprehensible speech must be defended; neo-Nazis and anti-Semites and racists and xenophobes and religious bigots and fools must be allowed to spew their venom - otherwise the 'freedom' is meaningless and our your defence of it is worthless.

 

[OldSolduer]

Even this? There's a problem with the word 'holy' or 'sacred;' who gets to decide? I do not regard the Tao Te Ching as either holy or sacred because many scholars have decided, and I am satisfied with their decision, that the religious components of Taoism are quite secondary to its philosophical components. In fact, as far as I know, Lao Tsu did not intend that his Tao Te Ching (or Daodejing, if you prefer) should be 'sacred' nor that he should be a god. He was a philosopher, akin to and a near contemporary of Confucius, who focused his thinking on ways to achieve spiritual balance and to comprehend (rather than understand) the universe and our place in it.

Let's not burn any books. The 'freedom of speech' (actually freedom of expression - which includes e.g. burning flags, displaying a crucifix in a jar of urine and so on) we many of you have pledged to defend as a fundamental right (but not a natural right, I think) only counts when the most reprehensible speech must be defended; neo-Nazis and anti-Semites and racists and xenophobes and religious bigots and fools must be allowed to spew their venom - otherwise the 'freedom' is meaningless and our your defence of it is worthless.

I heartily concur. While I find the burning of flags reprehensible, it's a right that over 100,000 Canadians have died for.

 

[George Wallace]

SPOILER ALERT 2.0

yes but in the movie the holy burning had happened so long ago(along with every other book they could get their hands on) that nobody even knew what a holy book was or why it mattered???

Interesting point.  In the distant past, the majority of the population was illiterate.  Only the scribes could read and write.  So if a book was burned in front of a mob, who would really know what the name of the book really was?

 

[Container]

When I was a kid the big thing was whether it was actually okay to burn the American flag. If it was covered by free speech or not.

Eventually it was seen to be okay. Terrible. But okay.

Now we are at the point where its not okay to burn a book because you might make someone in another country angry. But its okay to burn something you're own people find important.

Of course there are American Muslims who hate the idea as well but also love free speech. But the concern is for the offending of the fringe elements(extremists of any stripe) we're already at war with.

 

[Rogo]

The fear is not of offending enemy combatants it is:

1) Destroying domestic support.
2) Giving fuel to the fire for recruiters of enemy combatants. When they get their hands on a story like this they can say "hey look, they hate our religion. Take up arms"

 

[Container]

People in those "countries" think we hate their religion because we have McDonalds or because my wife wears a bikini.

A hick pastor burning a "Coorun" should never have even made it to the news.

As for domestic support- this isnt a war on Islam. So maybe if we could differentiate between combat and religion we might not have to worry about Billy Bobs effect on domestic support.

If the president burned a "holy book" that would be different.

They believe what ever stories confirm their own ridiculous ideas- we have some of those over here too. If they didnt have this story they'd make up something similar- The great leader was the first man on the moon according to N.K.

The man who is recruited because he can't abide other peoples different viewpoints, like the "pastor", wont abide other ideas like how I like to live my life. He's only being recruited by those he already has so much in common with.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I heartily concur. While I find the burning of flags reprehensible, it's a right that over 100,000 Canadians have died for.

People burn Canadian flags all the time, I'm sure.  It's standard anti-government protest 101. Grab a flag, roll cameras, burn the flag, celebrate badassery.
How fast would our "right" be challenged if someone wanted to burn an Islamic Flag?

Even this? There's a problem with the word 'holy' or 'sacred;' who gets to decide? I do not regard the Tao Te Ching as either holy or sacred because many scholars have decided, and I am satisfied with their decision, that the religious components of Taoism are quite secondary to its philosophical components. In fact, as far as I know, Lao Tsu did not intend that his Tao Te Ching (or Daodejing, if you prefer) should be 'sacred' nor that he should be a god. He was a philosopher, akin to and a near contemporary of Confucius, who focused his thinking on ways to achieve spiritual balance and to comprehend (rather than understand) the universe and our place in it.

Touche. Can't argue with any of that.

Let's not burn any books. The 'freedom of speech' (actually freedom of expression - which includes e.g. burning flags, displaying a crucifix in a jar of urine and so on) we many of you have pledged to defend as a fundamental right (but not a natural right, I think) only counts when the most reprehensible speech must be defended; neo-Nazis and anti-Semites and racists and xenophobes and religious bigots and fools must be allowed to spew their venom - otherwise the 'freedom' is meaningless and our your defence of it is worthless.

The Bible and others have gone through numerous revisions haven't they?  What if we took all the applicable religious texts and edited out all the violent cut your left hand off, stone people, kill whoever parts and had a  V.2010 kinder gentler edition.  Slowly but surely we start weeding out all the violent parts of the bible, quran etc.. and in a few generations religion won't be a reason to kill each other.