How much worse is burning Korans than burning US flags, or is it?

its the same… Muslims burn the US flag every other week in effigy…they even burned pictures of the pastor of the church planning the Koran burning… eye for eye is in the Koran…their really shouldn’t be any special reaction to either.

Continuing the negativity will never result in a positive outcome.

It’s probably about equal but burning Korans makes so much less sense that it’s going to seem even more fanatic.

I just don’t’ see how any member of a ‘Church’ can think that this is productive in any way at all. It saddens me. Neither is worse; both promote war to some degree.

@talljasperman :: Even if your claims were legit are you equating burning a flag to a religious text?

Are you that dense?

An observation regarding “Just because the burning of Korans is legal under the law should it logically be avoided because of the potential to incite…”

When reading criticism of the plan to build an Islamic community center a few blocks away from Ground Zero, one of the ideas that I kept seeing a lot was, “Well, I guess they have the religious freedom to build the center, but they shouldn’t necessarily go ahead with the plan, considering the grave insult to Americans and the sanctity of the location.” (I’m cleaning the language up a bit.)

Now that the situation is an American church who wants to desecrate the thing that Muslims hold sacred, what I’m hearing is, “That church 100% has the right to freedom of speech, and even if Muslims around the world are moved to Jihad by the apparent American war on Islam, you can’t hold the speaker responsible for the violence their speech incites.”

To review: The “Mosque” has the right to be built, but that doesn’t mean that it should be built, says the Right. Meanwhile, they seem to disagree with the Left’s idea that the Church has the right to burn Korans, but maybe they ought not to do so.

Both issues, IMHO, boil down to: Yes, there are first amendment rights, but just because something can be done, doesn’t mean that it’s the best idea all around. With the freedom to exercise a right comes the responsibility of dealing with the repercussions.

Muslims in the United States have been dealing with the repercussions of the Ground Zero “mosque” in the increased number of incidents of religious violence, stabbing, mosque desecration and protests, etc., for months, even though they don’t necessarily belong to the Manhattan congregation. Meanwhile, other than a few threats and possibly a counter protest, the people that are planning to burn Korans are seemingly happy to let the U.S. military take their literal bullets for them.

You can be sure that the Islamic world is watching and thinks that it’s a war against Islam by Americans, just as surely as Americans think it’s a war against America by all Islam. After all, that’s what fundamentalists in both places are saying.

Hatred and intolerance of any form is essentially the same. Both are despicable, and the one does not justify the other. People who do either are playing the same game.

I’d say burning a flag or koran is no better or worse than burning any other book or scrap of cloth. However I might argue that burning books is slightly worse since the pages are more likely to get caught by a breeze and cause a wildfire.

I’m pretty sure wildfires are the worst of the bunch.

My preference would be for civil debate rather than public burnings (or stonings).

They are just symbols. If I burn a book or a flag in the privacy of my own home and don’t tell anyone about it, there are no consequences. Having said that, I think the church’s minister and 50 members should be forced to refrain from the burning as a way of protecting Americans abroad.

Is not burning the Koran a form of hate speech?

In my view, the importance of symbols should not be minimized—for one thing, they represent emotions and beliefs that are often too difficult to communicate in words—but I do agree with you, @LostInParadise, that the church should be persuaded (peacefully) not to burn the books.

On 9/11, I was shocked and hurt by the destruction of the World Trade Centers, and the senseless murder of nearly 3000 people.
What really, really got me upset was the video images of Arab women singing, laughing and dancing over it. Those images so infuriated me, I could easily have nuked them all till they glowed.
It embarasses me that this guy, who is supposed to be a messenger of God, is so thoughtless and callous. As a Christian, I am ashamed of him.

Both are attacks on symbols, not direct attacks on what they symbolize. One is a symbol for a nation, the other a symbol for a religion. I don’t approve of book burning in any form, and I don’t approve of flag burning. But both are legal forms of expression protected under the first Amendment rights to freedom of speech in the USA. So while both are offensive to me, when I served in the US military I was defending the rights of people here to do either one.

Now, if you switch from burning symbols to burning what they symbolize, we have a whale different situation. Burning Americans or burning Muslims is murder, and should be punished to the maximum extent of the law. Anyone on either side of the controversey, the anti Islamic Center protesters or the anti Quran Burning protesters, who step over the line from symbolic protest to doing physical harm needs to face the full force of the law to stop them.

I’d say the Koran is far worse. Burning a US flag in its purest sense is unassociated with religion; the US flag is not a religious object, and in general less offensive than burning a religious document, something that can serve as a guideline, a handrail through life, not just some symbol of the country that you live in.

What this question is really asking, I think is “What’s worse, a Muslim burning a US flag, or an American burning a Koran?

Both are wrong, but allowed by our freedoms in the U.S.
I think that that so called “pastor” in Florida is an idiot! @laureth I have not heard anyone outside of his own church that supports him, but you may have. I have only heard condemnation of him, from the right.

I think burning a Bible and burning a Koran might be more the same, than burning a flag and the Koran.
I hope that fool stops on his quest for his 15 minutes of fame before many innocent people are hurt because of him. The question in my mind is, how can we stop him?

The burning of a bible by a pastor of a church (with merely 50 followers, I have come to understand) in a fully free and democratic country like the US, seems a bit more stupid/inappropriate to me than the burning of a flag by a person living in an islamic dictatorship.

A pastor should know better, has far better ways to communicate his ideas and should also better realize the consequences of his acts. But then again… this pastor is just a whacky religious lunatic and these types of people often don’t care too much about others, I fear.

If you’d ask me, anyone and everyone has the right to burn anything they want to, as long as they do it in a safe way. This is however not so much about the right to burn a book, as much as it is about publicly showing and inviting to hatred. I feel that in my country, therefore, it would probably not be allowed. Not because of burning a book, but because of the public display and sowing of hatred. Would make an interesting legal case.

(I doubt, however, with our historic awareness of the onset of WWII in mind, that even fanatic people would be willing to invite anyone to publicly burn any book, leave alone a religious one.)

Both acts are equally idiotic.

To compare apples to apples, which is more offensive, Mexicans burning the US flag in Mexico in protest over the Arizona Papers Please law, or Americans in Arizona burning the Mexican flag to protest illegal immigration? Aren’t they roughly the same think, attacking a symbol to express disapproval of what it symbolizes?

Putting up a building is an act of creation and burning a book is nothing more than destruction so you really can’t draw a parallel between the two events in that sense. I personally don’t want the building to go up right there, as I feel that there are other things going on but I cannot know for sure. I do not feel that putting up a mosque can be used as a justification for this juvenile and barbaric act of burning books.
Burning the Qua’ran for the sake of thumbing one’s nose at a group of people is beyond childish. It deserves no attention whatsoever, the same way one should ignore a child throwing a tantrum in the living room. They are both “attention seeking behaviour” and should be countered with adult psychology. Attention only re-enforces the behaviour which will cause an escalation. Remember that I said this. Escalation. Which will come on both sides. There will be an escalation and the perpetrators will act all hurt and self righteous and say “See? What did we tell you about those people? Now we have to do something else to them.”

Just a random side thought regarding the (proposed) location of the Mosque.

While it is true that Muslims have every right to put up a Mosque anywhere they want provided they follow local building codes and laws, that doesn’t necessairly make it a good idea. If they want to build a Mosque there, fine. However, rather than burning books as a response, I suggest something a bit more subtle. How about putting a pork sausage factory next door, a gay dance club on the other side, and your basic adult book store across the street? After all, they too have every right to locate their facilities wherever they want.

@YoBob There already is a porno shop on the same block. One of the reasons Mayor Bloomberg supported the project is it would turn a vacant store and coat factory into a The proposed 15-story community center with a prayer room, offices, meeting rooms, gym, swimming pool and performing arts center open to people of all faiths.

Since the loss of all the business from the people working at the World Trade Center, the neighborhood has been on very hard times. Small shops and restaurants that used to serve the wroking population have gone out of business, and many of the buildings are shuttered and run down.

I just checked. My American flag weighs about 300gm. The soft cover copy of the Koran I have weighs 500 gm. Both are made of cellulose, hemi-cellulose and lignin with similar specific heats. Burning a Koran will put about 750 grams of CO2 into the environment while burning a US flag will put out 450 grams.
So burning a Koran is 750/450 = 1.66 or 66.7% worse than burning a US flag.

Were you talking about something else?

@worriedguy I love it!

First off it’s spelled Qur’an.

Secondly comparing any nation’s flag to a religious text is a show of bias and a bit of ignorance.

One cannot a national symbol (which among other things stands for values that include freedom of worship without persecution) to not only a book that is not only a symbol for a religion but considered holy by millions of people (including many many Americans).

You see throngs of American “Christians” rallying against mosques and “Islamic symbolism” in memorials and burning flags… and they want to burn the Qur’an in protest… wouldn’t they react violently if someone decided to burn a Bible?

These people are nowhere to be found when you see white protestant Americans burning flags in protest over an ideal… but if a brown-skinned foreigner does it on foreign soil then it’s evil and most likely linked to terrorism.

Allowing the desecration of any religious symbol…. Christian, Muslim, Jewish or what-have-you will only breed more animosity and can lead to violence.

The thinking that a Qur’an for a flag is “an eye for an eye” displays the kind of narrow thinking that has led to the US going from esteemed ally to despised presence in many nations of the world. It saddens me that the country I love so much has strayed from it’s principles of acceptance and freedom from persecution if you are anything other than christian or of European descent.

I as a Catholic man take great offense to these kinds of displays of intolerance, bigotry and hate. It makes me ashamed of those “so called Christians” that conveniently forget the basic precepts of tolerance, love and compassion once it applies to anyone other than Christians.

Burn a Qur’an today… but if you see someone burning a bible in protest then shut up ant take it like a man.

/end rant

This pastor is a lunatic that is looking for attention. The Imam in charge of building the Mosque is almost as bad. He has now stated that IF he changed the site of the “community center” it would incite radicals. Why should it matter to them (the radicals) now if it never did before?

The Flag is a symbol in my opinion. An actual Bible is a symbol. (you can’t burn the message)

I loved @worriedguy‘s answer.

@ETpro Perhaps it is time for the Christians to step up to the plate and offer a similar community center, or work with the Muslims to produce a truly non-denominational community center for people of all faiths at that location. Something like that might go a long way towards demonstrating tolerance on both sides and showing that the true goals are to build community rather than promote “in your face” activism.

If the Muslum goal truly is to provide a community center open to all faiths rather than to pursue a more subtle agenda, then they shouldn’t object to the Christians helping build the center and putting a similar chapel on site as well.

Because people are too scared of “offending” anything muslim. It seems it is a worse thing to burn a Koran than the American flag. It is ok for protesting muslims that live right in America burning our flag oh but don’t you dare burn that Koran.

It’s worse for two reasons:

1. Book burning is tacky. The Nazis did it. The act itself is a symbol of attempts at ideological censorship. Flag-burning has not been used historically as attempts to censor ideologies.

2. If people burn flags, it won’t spark insane extremists to go on murder sprees. Burning Qurans probably will. This doesn’t mean the Quran-burner is directly responsible for any murders committed by insane people, but I do think some degree of blood would be on the Quran-burner’s hand for knowingly provoking and instigating insane murderers.

@missingbite, the imam in charge of the Cordoba institute is not anywhere NEAR as bad as the person burning Qurans, and your inability to see the difference says more about you than it does about him.

Here is the problem with comparing burning Qurans to building a Muslim center two blocks from ground zero.

The first is a deliberate provocation, an attack on a rival faith. The second is, by all accounts, an attempt at building bridges.

Now, you can argue that Cordoba is a botched attempt at building bridges, because right-wing idiots believe, falsely, that it’s a victory mosque and are “offended.” But this is not a reasonable reaction, and it doesn’t speak to the intent of the imam.

I see your point very well, @Qingu, but by pointing at the common reactions rather than the common causes, I’d hoped to illustrate a point. Had my comment been more thorough, I would have added something like that, but alas, it was already too long and a lot of people tl;dr under those circumstances. Plus: muddies the point.

Here is my point of view, summed up in two simple sentences, take them or leave them.

1. Both are retarded and disrespectful.

2. Even so, people still have the right to do either, which we should really be thankful for.

@Qingu If we use your logic, then why is it that now the Imam is worried that moving the Cordoba would insult radical Muslims into violence. Was this Imam not smart enough to have thought this through?

@missingbite because the man is not psychic. No reasonable person could have foreseen the kind of insane and inflamatory BS that has been thrown around due to the creations of a place of worship.

@missingbite IMHO, the Imam is quite smart and did think it through. This is just like any other jousting match. The Imam has an agenda to promote. The whole “worried about inciting riots among radical Muslims” is just one of the many cards he has to play to tip the balance in his favor.

There is no answer to your question – both are symbols and mean something to certain people. Some people care more for religion than a nation and some people care for the opposite or for neither. I detest book destruction of any kind but that is irrelevant – don’t give a crap about flags either but I’m not nationalistic. To others, it’s different. I agree with @laureth‘s first comment.

@missingbite and @YoBob, I’m not sure what you’re implying about the Cordoba imam. Care to spell it out?

@Qingu I’m not implying anything. I am saying straight out that I believe the fear if inciting riots among radical Muslims is a red herring, has little basis in reality, and is nothing more than boilerplate political posturing that anyone with his agenda is likely to take.

As a side note, it is important to remember that the Inmam has influence over how any actions on this matter are “spun” to the faithful. He can choose to present the idea of movement of the proposed site as an opportunity for Muslims to be more successful in their goals of promoting their ideals by being sensitive to the diverse community that surrounds them, or he can present it as a slap in the face from America in general and those evil Christins specifically and should be viewed as an act of aggression. In short the “fear of rioting by radical Muslums” is little more than a thinly veiled threat that, IMHO, belies a not very well disguised agenda.

@YoBob, 100 people died over the Muhammad cartoon riots.

The imam has spent the last two weeks trying to influence international Muslim communities to be more supportive of America. The State Department has basically used him as pro-Muslim PR. How exactly does this enter into your conspiracy theory about him?

I also find your argument here fundamentally hypocritical. You seem to believe that Muslim over-reaction to Quran-burning (a direct attack on their religion) is not a big deal, and shouldn’t be taken seriously—yet you expect the imam to take overreaction to the Cordoba institute’s building site seriously? Why should one overreaction be dismissed, but not the other?

@YoBob I’ve heard that proposed and I think it is a terrific idea. Make iit a center with a Muslim prayer room, a Christian and a Jewish one. Make it a true symbol of the meeting of the three Abrahamic faiths. It is, after all, the same God they are all worshiping.

@Qingu If Muslims are outraged by byrning their books, burn some bibles. But claiming the right to riot, burn homes and businesses and kill people who had nothing to do with the affront to their religion puts their religion on a plane no religion deserves, We live in a nuclear age. We all need to develop thicker skins, because the world is full of publicity seeking morons like pastor Jones who will use hate to get themselves into the 24 hour news cycle. THey guy has a tiny church that typically has about 30 people sitting in folding metal chairs on Sunday, and suddenly he’s got a larger press crew following him around than he has a congregation.

@ETpro, you will get no argument from me that Muslims who get upset about burning Qurans—let alone Muslims who want to kill over burning Qurans—are at minimum irrational fools, and at maximum insane psychopaths. Muslims should develop thicker skin. Better yet, Muslims shouldn’t be Muslims in the first place because Islam is a nonsensical 7th century cult.

That said: you can wish in one hand, and… we live in the world we live in, and it’s unfortunately home to more than a handful of extremist Muslims who would kill over religious desecration (not unlike the Jews of the Roman and Greek eras). I wish they didn’t exist, but they do. I don’t think we should allow such terrorists to censor our free speech, but I also don’t think we should deliberately provoke them into violence for no reason whatsoever.

@Qingu

> 100 people died over the Muhammad cartoon riots.

Which is a great example of why we should be concerned about the spread of radical Muslim fundamentalism and would be well advised to approach the true intent of those involved in this controversy with a fair amount of skepticism.

> The imam has spent the last two weeks trying to influence international Muslim communities to be more supportive of America. The State Department has basically used him as pro-Muslim PR. How exactly does this enter into your conspiracy theory about him?

I think calling my opinion a “conspiracy theory” is a rash overstatement. I am simply saying that in any political interaction neither side starts out by laying all of their cards on the table. I remain unconvinced of the lack of a hidden agenda and when I run the “fear of riot” argument through my galactic translator it comes out to something like “Give me what I want or we’ll bust up the place, but really we are here to promote peace.”

> You seem to believe that Muslim over-reaction to Quran-burning (a direct attack on their religion) is not a big deal, and shouldn’t be taken seriously—yet you expect the imam to take overreaction to the Cordoba institute’s building site seriously?

It is not the “overreaction” to the institute’s building site itself (book burning) that the Imam should take seriously (the existence of idiots would seem to be a universal constant). However, the fact that there is so much general outrage is something that the Imam would be wise to carefully consider. The stated goal is to provide a community center to promote peace and goodwill. I submit that it is quite clear that those goals would be better served by picking a less controversial location and to flatly ignore that option implies a broader agenda. The threat of riots if the Muslim side of the house doesn’t get their way is, IMHO, simply a confirmation of that suspicion.

@ETpro

Can I get an Amen!

Actually, I think the act committed by the loons who blew up the 1700 year old stone Buddhas in Bamiyan Valley, Afghanistan was far worse than any book or flag burning.

In case you missed it, it was those playful, wacky, tacky, Talis

@YoBob I will agree that all the stakeholders in the building project should sit down and find some compromise that lets a building go up somewhere where it can serve its purposes, but does not inflame passions on either side. But I won’t be holding my breath waiting for either side to act anywhere near that rationally.

@worriedguy I totally agree with that. There is no comparison between burning a book that can be easily and cheaply replaced, and destroying an irreplaceable and priceless piece of ancient history.

To an outsider who is neither Muslim nor American, they seem exactly the same to me. An expression of hate, nothing more or less than that.

@ETpro “I will agree that all the stakeholders in the building project should sit down and find some compromise that lets a building go up somewhere where it can serve its purposes, but does not inflame passions on either side. But I won’t be holding my breath waiting for either side to act anywhere near that rationally.”

I don’t see why they should. I don’t think anyone would demand that a Christian or Jewish group should compromise and relocate their church or temple because their holy place was offensive to others. That’s absurd. They own the property, they can do what they like with it within the law. To suggest otherwise not only suggests that the practice of Islam conditional in this country, but that even property rights need not be uniformly respected if a big enough group of people take objection to the owner or owners.

Found it. Here’s the video clip of the destruction. Their mamas must be so proud.

@YoBob, back up. When did Rauf say anything about a “fear of riot”?

I imagine he might have said something like “if we cave to irrational right-wing pressure and relocate the mosque, it will send a signal to the Muslim world that America is intolerant of Islam and play into the West vs. Islam narrative that al-Qaeda finds so useful.”

Which is absolutely true. Are you claiming that saying this amounts to a threat? Do I have a hidden agenda now, too?

@Qingu Actually the opposition to the mosque is good for Taliban recruitment.

@fundevogel I think @Qingu meant exactly that when he made reference to “right-wing pressure”

Yeah, that’s what I meant. I said al-Qaeda, but the Taliban, too.

@Qingu gotcha.

@Qingu I was referring to @missingbite statement:

> He has now stated that IF he changed the site of the “community center” it would incite radicals.

@Qingu Why is the irrational behavior only one way. Is it not irrational for our soldiers and citizens to be in danger because a few idiots practiced their first amendment rights by burning a few Qur’an’s?

As far as the intelligence of the Imam that you asked me about…I believe that the Imam is very intelligent. I would say it shouldn’t have been a stretch for him to know that picking the site they chose was going to be a controversy.

Looks like the pastor in Florida may have gotten his wish.

> Do I have a hidden agenda now, too?

I don’t know. Do you? Nearest I can discern, your agenda for this thread is to make me out to be somehow defective because I have stated that I believe:

1) Burning of the Koran as well as burning of the flag are equally idiotic acts.

2) Although the owners of the property have every right to build whatever they want there, but that doesn’t make it a good idea.

2a) This is a double edged sword. I can’t help but wonder about the Muslim reaction if the owners of the property next door decided to put in a pork sausage factory on one side and a gay dance club on the other.

3) If the goal is truly to serve the community rather than to make a statement then I submit that that goal could be better served by seeking alternatives. Suggestion 1: Find a less controversial location. Suggestion 2: Make it a truly multi (non) denominational community center that also includes a church and a synagogue and let it stand as a shining symbol of unity.

3a) Not even considering alternatives and subsequently playing the “I’m worried about Inciting radicals” card does not do anything to sooth the concern of those who suspect that the real motivation behind the selection of this site is a subtle, but very real, monument to a great victory for Islam erected at the site of what the more radical factions consider to be one of their most visible triumphs.

@Dr_C – technically, it’s spelled القرآن
Just sayin’.

@laureth in it’s original language yes. You dear lady are awesome.
for those of us illiterate in that form of writing however… Qur’an will have to do

Am I missing something? My Oxford American dictionary shows multiple spellings with Koran being one of them.

@missingbite, of course not. Muslims who kill people over burned books are more than several layers more insane than American conservatives who get upset over a mosque near ground zero.

I think the imam is intelligent, but from everything I’ve read about him, he strikes me very much as a hippie, sort of like the Muslim version of Fluther’s own mattbrowne. By that I mean a very positive, optimistic person when it comes to religion and attempts at understanding. (Sufism is by far the most liberal version of Islam.) It’s not surprising to me that he didn’t predict this level of uproar—clearly mayor Bloomberg and Obama did not either, and they are also very smart.

@YoBob, the center will contain a church and a synagogue, as well as a memorial to the victims of 9/11. You have yet to cite this “card” that you’ve repeatedly accused Rauf of playing.

My position is clear: Rauf shouldn’t respect “offended” members of the community, because those views are not worthy of respect. People who oppose the building of the Cordoba center are irrational and largely xenophobic.

Now, if large groups of Americans were threatening to go on murder sprees in opposition to the mosque (as extremist Muslims do in response to sacrilege), then I could make an argument that the center shouldn’t be built—not because those views should be respected, but rather because I think protecting people’s lives is probably a higher priority.

Also, I prefer Quran (not Koran), but that’s because I like the letter Q. I absolutely refuse to use diacritical marks. In fact, I think Muslim insistence that we use diacritical marks to transcribe Arabic is infinitely more pushy and offensive than building a mosque near ground zero.

@Qingu “I prefer Quran (not Koran), but that’s because I like the letter Q.”

Are you sure it’s not because “k” is an evil letter?

What if it were a Bible they were going to burn? Would those of you who oppose burning the Qur’an be just as opposed to burning a Bible? Or, for those of you who say it’s acceptable to burn the Qur’an be just as accepting of Bible burning? Put the shoe on the other foot and see how well it fits.

I wouldn’t burn either. Didn’t somethng like this happen a few years ago with some atheist guy? Did he not burn a bunch of bibles? To what end? I oppose blatant stupidity in all its forms.
This fucking keyboard is PISSING me off!

@CaptainHarley, I wouldn’t be as opposed to burning a Bible because it wouldn’t instigate a chain of events that might lead to people’s deaths.

Not now, anyway. 100 years ago, Christians weren’t so civilized….

@fundevogel I see the burning of the Qur’ans and the building project, now that it’s become so controversial, as similar in this respect. Both are perfectly legal. Thise proposing to do them have a right to do so. But both are going to lead to trouble. Since Imam Rauf’s stated purpose was to build interfaith bridges, a compromise on location would seem to be in the interest of doing that. While both men have the right to go ahead, people have the right to feel as they do about their actions.

@Qingu Nobody, Muslim or any other faith, has the right to riot or put out death threats over every thing they view as an affront to their religion. We may have to draw a line in the sand about that as some point in time. Which would be a more serious affront to a religion, burning some easily replaced holy books or dynamiting statues carved in antiquity, irreplaceable and a treasure to the whole world?

Saying that one act is more abominable than the other because of the probable reaction of the offended party strikes me as ludicrous.

@rooeytoo It probably is. But it follows the logic the right used when they first politicized the Islamic Center. “There are some things that are within your rights to do, but not the right thing to do because of the reaction they will bring.” Fair for ths goose is fair for the gander.

@ETpro – I haven’t heard that reason. I have heard that it should not be built because it is in poor taste, and that the idea that it is a healing or conciliatory action is pure unadulterated bs.

Regardless, it is still a ludicrous position in my mind.

@ETpro – “I see the burning of the Qur’ans and the building project, now that it’s become so controversial, as similar in this respect. Both are perfectly legal. Thise proposing to do them have a right to do so. But both are going to lead to trouble.”

That maybe, but the Constitution guarantees the right freely practice religion. It seems to me that right is undermined when a religious group is bullied because of their desire to practice their faith within their own property.

I don’t think backing down because other people’s hostility to your rights is at all appropriate. There’s a Jefferson quote I like (or maybe Thomas Paine?), which sadly I can’t find. I’ll paraphrase. The basic point of it was no one is given rights freely. You only get what you demand. If it weren’t for people that stood up for themselves and others, even when there was serious risk we wouldn’t have the people who’s efforts pulled this country out of it’s darkest days kicking a screaming. People like the Little Rock Nine, Alice Paul, John Brown, The Hollywood Ten and Martin Luther King. The moment when people say that you ought to compromise your rights for the better good is the moment you should fight hardest.

As far as the Koran burning goes, I just don’t care. They should be able to do it, but it’s stupid and vitriolic and those people have no credibility within the debate. Being able to build a community center on your own property however is neither stupid or vitriolic. The only thing that could possibly be offensive about it is if you* just find the presence of Muslims there offensive. And while I’m never impressed by complaints of offense I’m even less sympathetic when they’re thinly veiled bigotry.

*I know you are not one of these people, I just don’t think you should legitimize their complaint by suggesting compromising with them is reasonable.

@rooeytoo A number of prominent Republicans have made the argument I stated. The Center had been planned for many months when this was politicized. It’s no accident it became an explosive issue only as we neared an election. And the plan from day one was for a cultural center for all faiths, with numerous facilities such as meeting areas, a swimming pool, a gym, and a prayer room.

You are right the more toxic right wingers have completely ignored the constitutional issue of property rights and freedom of religion. Newt Gingrich called for the federal or state government to step in and stop the project cold. But a number of Republicans who vaguely concede we still have a Constitution have used the argument I stated above. Maybe it doesn’t get much air time on Fox News and Rush’s take of things. I don’t know where you get the bulk of your news, but any number of Republicans and Democrats have used that reasoning.

This is one of those issues where emotions turn higher than the facts or logic. Playing devil’s advocate I can see both sides of it, however the law is on the side of the Qur’ans. Even if you can do it, it is not always the wisest to do it as @laureth and a few others I believe had said.

Many people want to link it to the mosque near ground “Zero” when it really is not. The mosque is only a small part of the building, it is a cultural center I believe that is what they coined it where part of it serves as a mosque. Do you nix every other thing the center has to offer because many don’t want a mosque there? That would be like suffering without paper because of those who oppose foresting trees. Could linking it be seen as a chip or a bargaining tool, yeah. The same way saying there will be insurgence who would be angered if the builders of the mosque capitulated and moved it elsewhere.

dverhey What this question is really asking, I think is “What’s worse, a Muslim burning a US flag, or an American burning a Koran? There was no mention on who does the flag burning. 40 some odd years ago American burned the flag when they felt frustrated and disenfranchised enough. Flag burning is not indicative of foreigners darker skin or from Europe. Many would feel if any foreigners burned the US flag it would be more egregious if it were people from the Middle East in tune with @filmfann.

But then if you think outside-the-box why they were dancing at the fall of the Twin Towers can be understood in part. Imagine you are being terrorized the way you feel even if no one else seen it that way, and the person who was doing it and helping other people you don’t get along with to do the same when it seems like they were ”taken down a peg” you would be happy. I am sure when Saddam was hanged there were some slapping “high 5s” when the leaked video was seen and when the news reported it, the same when Abu Musab al Zarqawi was thunder struck by the US military.

No one wants to capitulate because they will be seen as backing down to threats or bullying. The pastor don’t want to back down unless he can use the mosque as a foil, and the mosque will use not building it maybe putting American or soldiers as the foil.

We all need to develop thicker skins, because the world is full of publicity seeking morons like pastor Jones who will use hate to get themselves into the 24 hour news cycle. THey guy has a tiny church that typically has about 30 people sitting in folding metal chairs on Sunday, and suddenly he’s got a larger press crew following him around than he has a congregation. Don’t give him his 15 minutes of fame, ignore him, treat the story as the guy who was knifed to death last night during a botched robbery outside the subway at Coney Island. You wonder who I am talking about? That is the point, nightly many people are killed and hardly make page 8 of the paper because they were basically nobodies. If the army of reporters would quit being media whores and go cover something else he may have burned his Qur’ans and outside the local area no one would have even knew it happened, just as a rotten oak tumbling out in the middle of a forest.

How quickly such an inane question has turned into a tribal response. The problem is that both are symbols. Which if I remember correctly should not be worshipped under any of the religions. As humans we should stop dividing into tribes bent on being right and work together for whats right for “We the People”.

When we put aside these symbols, maybe we will realize that we are all one tribe. HUMAN

I thought this battle was over back in the 1400’s.

@Qingu

> the center will contain a church and a synagogue, as well as a memorial to the victims of 9/11.

I believe that was one of the reasonable alternatives I support, However this is the first I have heard of the inclusion of a church and synagogue. I would think that the Inmam and other supporters of the center would be doing their best to highlight the inter-faith aspect of the site rather than allowing it to continue to be billed as a Mosque and taking a rather combative and unyielding stance against the rather widespread opposition.

> You have yet to cite this “card” that you’ve repeatedly accused Rauf of playing.

Actually I did. I believe I posted the quote from @missingbite to which I was referring and a subsequent poster, if memory serves, supplied the source text.

@ETpro, I’m not sure what you think I’m saying, but your response to me isn’t based on anything I said. I agree with you.

@YoBob, that’s been in the news for a while. Perhaps you should try to educate yourself instead of allowing yourself to perpetuate the very falsehoods you’re trying to blame the imam for not clearing up.

And I’d like to see the actual quote, please. I didn’t notice it.

@Qingu

Ok, here you go: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/09/imam-feisal-abdul-rauf-mo_n_710280.html

For the benefit of those to lazy to follow the link (or do their own search):

“NEW YORK — The imam behind a proposed Islamic community center and mosque near ground zero cautioned Wednesday that moving the facility could cause a violent backlash from Muslim extremists and endanger national security.”

The direct quotes are as follows:

“The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack,”

…

“But if you don’t do this right, anger will explode in the Muslim world,” he later said, predicting that the reaction could be more furious than the eruption of violence following the 2005 publication of Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

This is the classic good cop/bad cop negotiating tactic: Look, I really like you and want to be your friend, but my partner over there is a nutcase and if you don’t give me what I want I don’t know if I’ll be able to stop him from ripping your testicles off and feeding them to you.

Now it’s your turn. Please point to an article that indicates Rauf’s plans to include a church and synagogue in addition to a mosque in the proposed community center idea. The closest I have found is the inclusion of a “prayer space” that would be open to all. This is quite a different thing from an actual house of worship for either of the other religions mentioned.

Oh, and while you are at it I would appreciate it if you would stick to polite discourse rather than snippy insults.

Okay. How do you interpret any of that as a threat? It’s exactly what I said above, which is true.

You also seem to believe that Raul, a Sufi, is somehow on the same “side” as the extremists who he’s predicting are going to riot. Do you actually know anything about Sufism, or its relation to the Wahabist/Salafist strain of Islam practiced by the rioters? If you did, you might realize how insane your “good cop bad cop” implication sounds.

Here’s what he said about “prayer spaces” for Jews and Christians, from this editorial

There will be separate prayer spaces for Muslims, Christians, Jews and men and women of other faiths. The center will also include a multifaith memorial dedicated to victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.

To my eyes, a synagogue or a church is a prayer space (so is a mosque). I think you’re being quite pedantic here.

@Qingu

I believe that both Raul and the “extremists”, at the end of the day, are both Muslims, and I believe the Koran is quite clear about dictates regarding the conversion of infidels. Of course I am quite aware of the obvious fact that there are vast differences in opinions among various sects, just as there are in any other religion. However, at the end of the day the goal remains the same, to advance the cause of Islam. So, yes, I believe they are on the same side.

I quite support a multi faith community center, if it is, in fact truly done in good faith with the goal of serving the community, promoting unity, and providing a fitting memorial.

You stated that the center is to include a church and synagogue. While I agree that a church is a prayer space, a prayer space is not necessairly a church. I can say from personal experience, I have sent up prayers from locations that could not under even the loosest definition be called a church. Call me pedantic if you must, but I do not believe there are any current plans for a church or synagogue in the proposed community center.

@YoBob, do you believe that liberal Christians like Fluther’s mattbrowne are on the same side as abortion clinic bombers?

Also, I sincerely doubt that Raul would say he’s on the same side as Salafi extremists, many of whom believe he is a heretic who deserves to be killed (likewise for Salafi extremists). In fact Raul has explicitly said that Christians, Jews, and Muslims share a common enemy in extremist fundamentalists.

Perhaps I’m confused because I’ve never “sent up prayers,” but if I understand you, are you saying that a house of worship needs to be, like, its own building? And not a space in a building? Because according to that logic, there won’t be a mosque in the center either.

@Qingu

> do you believe that liberal Christians like Fluther’s mattbrowne are on the same side as abortion clinic bombers?

In that they are both Christians, they share the same goal of promoting their faith. I don’t think it would be too far of a stretch to find them both at a major non-denominational Christian rally together.

> Raul has explicitly said that Christians, Jews, and Muslims share a common enemy in extremist fundamentalists.

As I said, I believe that the Inmam is a wise man.

> are you saying that a house of worship needs to be, like, its own building?

I am saying that while it is true that one can pray/worship anywhere, simply because one recites “The Lord’s Prayer” somewhere does not make the location a church, nor does reading from the Torah make it a synagogue, nor does praying to Mecca make it a mosque.

You stated that the community center included plans for a church and synagogue. I contend they don’t.

@YoBob, next time you see mattbrowne, you might want to ask him if he considers himself to be on the same side as abortion clinic bombers.

I take it you’re a Christian—do you consider yourself to be on the same side as abortion clinic bombers? How about Catholic Inquisitioner torturers, or mass-murdering conquistadors?

And please explain what the difference is, exactly, between a “prayer space” and a “house of worship (synagogue/mosque/church). It will be interesting to see if you end up concluding that there is no mosque in the center.

> I take it you’re a Christian

It would seem you have made some unfounded assumptions. Let’s just say I have a very strong belief in our higher spiritual nature, but in general find religion self serving and, for the most part, repugnant.

When did I say that community center included plans for a mosque? You stated that the community center included plans for a church and a synagogue. I believe they do not.

Do you believe the community center has plans for a mosque?

I am unclear on that point.

Part of the difference is the world looks to us, watches and judges our behavior more than they do other nations, especially backwards nations like Afghanistan. WE have to be the grown up ones in the face of other nations or nationalities have disgusting temper tantrums.

Technically, since the Park51 Community Center will include a prayer room, we in English would refer to it as a Mosque. We refer in English to all buildings where Muslims worship regularly as Mosques..In Arabic, there are two separate words, masjids are prayer rooms only. The masajid is has a prayer room but also is used for Friday sermons and study of the Qu’ran. I believe that the plans for Park51 are for the samller paryer room sort of Mosque, not the masajid.

The building itself is planned to be 15 stories, but that is not because it is all devoted to worship. Per Wikipedia, “The facility’s design includes a 500-seat auditorium, theater, performing arts center, fitness center, swimming pool, basketball court, childcare area, bookstore, culinary school, art studio, food court, September 11 memorial, and prayer space that could accommodate 1,000–2,000 people”

Here is the most basic answer I can think of, that site is a tomb, a burial place for so many people. And their relatives view it as anyone would view a grave of a loved one. If someone close to me was murdered, I wouldn’t want a clubhouse for the murderers cohorts built beside the grave.

You may call that irrational or unreasonable but it sure as hell is the way I would feel and I can imagine anyone related to the 3000+ that were killed would have similar feelings.

That said and to answer the original question, I think the preacher who wanted to burn the books is as big a nutcase and religious maniac as the ones who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks,but at least he is not trying to murder as many people as he can. If anyone is murdered as a result of his action, it would be another blatant attack by the extremists. It is not an answer to anything and really can’t be excused, what did the attack accomplish in positive terms and what would the burning accomplish. No there is not much difference between the burnings, both are designed to incite but don’t actually cause any bodily harm.

@rooeytoo So if it had been Tim McVeigh (a Catholic) that decided to do this, or the Hutaree Christian militia then you would want all churches excluded from anywhere with 2 New York city blocks of the area? There is one there now. Would you want it torn down and moved?

Also, there is a porno shop and a strip joint just as close as the planned Park51 Community Center. What Constitutional clause would you invoke to force them to close and move somewhere else. Or are strip joints and porn shops just fine within 2 blocks of a tomb. Is it just religious facilities that can’t be close?

I know this is an issue where I am currently swimming upstream. The majority of Americans feel as you do right now. But then, back before the US military was integrated, the vast majority of troops polled said blacks should never serve in the same units with whites. During WWII, the vast majority of Americans agreed with the odious internment of Americans of Japanese decent. Bigotry is easy to stoke in a frightened public. But it never lasts the test of time. I think those viewing this as I do are on the right side of history here.

@ETpro – it seems to me you are trying to apply logic to a situation that is so charged with emotion that logic doesn’t have a chance. I think if my mom, dad, brother, sister, neice, whatever had been killed that day, I would be fighting the construction of that clubhouse or whatever you want to call it with all my might instead of just sitting here saying it is in poor taste on the part of the group that is doing the building. And if a bunch of catholics had killed all those innocent people I wouldn’t want a catholic church there either. But there is no sect of the catholic church in modern day that advocates killing Methodists or Baptists, at least as far as I know.

I don’t get the connection between porn and the site. The victims weren’t murdered by a bunch of half clothed strippers, what does that have to do with it?

@rooeytoo Logic always wins. Hate always looses.

Terry McVeigh was a Catholic. How close could a diocese be to the Muir Federal building? As far as I know, no survivor of a victim has ever raised that issue.

Timothy McVeigh’s religion had nothing to do with his actions. He was trying to act against the Federal Government because of some misguided notions about the Waco, TX thing. So if anything, you could blame the Branch Davidians. But religion was not his motivating factor. He didn’t do it in the name of the Catholic church. Which is why no survivor of a victim has ever raised the issue.
Yaaaay logic!

@Trillian He didn’t do it in the name of the Catholic church. Neither did the 9/11 terrorist was speaking for all of Islam, did they do what they did in the name of the Muslims in Indonesia and other non-Arab nations? Follow the logic and it usualy leads back to the truth.

They did it in the general cause of Islam. The point that is not being made is that extremists do not speak for everyone. This holds for the pastor as well as the 9/11 bombers. I think that a Moslem community center that allows non-Moslems to visit and tries to establish links with the surrounding community is a good step toward getting rid of the hatred toward Moslems. Additionally, it provides protection against the area being attacked again.

The terrorists that keep threatening this country are referred to as Islamic extremists. I never heard Mr.McVeigh referred to as a Catholic extremist. Why are you trying to make a parallel when there is none?

By basing your argument on the idea that the 9/11 hijackers were representatives of Islam, you are giving their worldview credence.

The very credence that Rauf and moderate Muslims are trying to reject.

Unrelated to the current thread of discussion, but: several people have died (shot by security forces) in violent protests over the Quran burning in Afghanistan and, now, Kashmir (yes, the Quran burning that didn’t actually take place), while attempting to storm Western security stations or government offices; some people in Kashmir burned down a school.

However bad Terry Jones is, people who engage in violent protests, risk their lives, try to kill other people, and burn down property because of even the possibility that their holy book will be burned are much worse. The most atrocious thing about this whole story is not that a crazy pastor was going to burn the Quran—the most atrocious thing is that there are savages in the Islamic world who would actually go on violent rampages because of a burning Quran.

Jones said he canceled the Quran burning because the point he was trying to make against Islam has already been made. It’s hard to disagree with him there.

@Qingu
My argument? My argument? These men are Islamic extremists. I don’t know where you get the idea that I feel that they represent Islam. They are extremists which indicate, to me anyway, a lunatic fringe. Certainly not Islam as a whole. I did not make up the term. Are you saying that the Islamic extremists, Al Queda or the Taliban or whatever the terrorists from the middle east are, do not base their hatred of us on their religion? Are you saying that for them, their religion has nothing to do with it?
Am I somehow misunderstanding you? Were you possibly addressing someone else?

The argument that because they are “Islamic” an Islamic center should not be built near ground zero.

Rauf and others would say they’re not actually Islamic. Certainly this is a no true scotsman fallacy, but it might be effective propaganda against Islamic extremism. I am sympathetic to the view that we should do whatever we can to prevent al-Qaeda from becoming representatives of Islam, and by saying “al-Qaeda is Muslim, therefore we shouldn’t let Sufi Muslims build here,” it’s playing into al-Qaeda’s hands to some extent.

It’s a no win situation for those of us that don’t like the location. If it gets moved, the extremists will say it’s an assault on Islam. (Like the Imam Rauf has suggested will happen) If it doesn’t, the extremists will claim victory that a Mosque was built there, where they attacked.

The Imam should have seen this coming. He either didn’t and is incompetent, or he has other intentions.

I am glad the Koran was not burned. It showed that the pastor can be reasoned with. Can the extremist who are hell bent on placing the “community center” say the same thing or is this just another one way street?

@missingbite The Imam should have seen this coming. He either didn’t and is incompetent, or he has other intentions. Bush and company should have seen these wars as becoming another Vietnam. I am not a military man and even I could see that as clear as a huge ink blotch on a white shirt. We should all know why that was, incompetence and certainly a 2nd agenda, but hine sight is always 20/20.

A full 101 responses before we got around to blaming Bush. Way to go! Two wrongs don’t make a right.

__Clarvoyance or the lack thereof is not just a Middle Eastern trait, either….._

@missingbite – GA for your words of sense and common sense. I do think the Imam has other intentions. He is thumbing his nose and saying we can do it no matter whether you like it or not. And that is the truth, he can do it and probably will. However his claims that it is a conciliatory or healing move is such bs, how can he help but know that he is causing a lot of grief to so many people, not just New Yorkers but people everywhere. Many Australians and people from other countries I speak to also think it is in very poor taste and are against the building regardless of its so called purpose.

Two points.

1. There’s a lady hiker that has been detained in Iran for over a year now, because she supposedly accidentally crossed into their territory while hiking. Iran wants her family to post a half million dollar bond for her release. An Iranian leader is calling even that small chance a bonus for Quran burners – because, you know, just like all Muslims are terrorists that fly planes into buildings, clearly all Americans are crazy Qur’an burners.

2. Why didn’t the Park51 Imam see this coming? Perhaps it’s because this Muslim congregation has had worship space in the vicinity of the WTC site since before the 9/11 attacks and now simply needs a bigger building to accommodate a larger group. Perhaps it’s because when the project was first announced, nobody raised a fuss until a couple conservative bloggers started spouting about it to their readership. Perhaps the Imam should have been reading conservative blogs to see if they would suddenly care about his decade-plus long search for another site?

@laureth Your point about nobody raising a fuss at first is a good point. Perhaps that tells us that real journalism is dead. Several times lately, the truth of a story came from The National Enquirer.

Just today we are finding out that the Imam Rauf has direct ties Faiz Kahn, a person who claims that September 11th was an inside job.

The hits with this guy just keep on coming.

@missingbite – if you’re into that sort of thing and are looking for real journalism in funky places, you’ve seen this, right? Looks like there are ties between FOX News and the “terror mosque.”

And this is what I mean by “didn’t cause a fuss.”

The reaction? Nada. Later that month, in fact, conservative radio host Laura Ingraham interviewed the imam’s wife on “O’Reilly Factor” and said: “I can’t find many people who really have a problem with it. . . . I like what you’re trying to do.”

@Trillian Coming in late….if I recall, the terrorists in 9/11 screamed to “Allah” at the last moments, as if they were doing it all in the name of Him. Timothy McVey, to my knowledge, didn’t scream “God!!!” as if he was doing it all in His name…..plus, the chicken shit didn’t even kill himself. Just a bunch of other people and children.

@Qingu You are changing the discussion. @Hypocrisy_Central tried to draw a paralell between the terrorists and Timothy McVeigh. He said that since he was Catholic, why don’t people protest catholic churches. I countered that he did not bomb that building in the name of his church, so it was not the same as the Islam extremists. Then, for some reason, you said; “By basing your argument on the idea that the 9/11 hijackers were representatives of Islam, you are giving their worldview credence.”
What? I never said anything of the kind. And it does not change the fact that Timothy McVeigh was a bomber having noreligious reasons for his actins, but Islam extremists definitely are using their religion to justify what they do. You can’t say that they don’t try to kill us in the name of their religion, because that is exactly what they do. And to try and say that people think all muslims are trying to kill us, or all of Islam is against us is incorrect and if you are missing the point of what I was addressing to @Hypocrisy_Central. Trying to say that these terrorists are not motivated by their “religion” is a fallacy and absurd. I am not even addressing the center at this point, or any other point in the conversation.

@Trillian that was me I think and not @Hypocrisy_Central who just came to my defense. I probably should have chosen the Hutaree as an example, as they were a religiously motivated militia. But they never managed to pull off the cargnage they had planned, so they make a poor example too. What I meant to point to, however ineptly I may have selected an example, is that an extremist or group of extremists don’t speak for everyone. Black Panthers are not the same as all blacks. Al Qaeda is not the same as all of Islam.

When the far right finally decided the political timing was right to demonize Imam Rauf and the Park51 project, the lies they led with were aimed at making Islam, al Qaeda, the Taliban and 9/11 all part of one big picture. If we ever stood any chance of winning at counter insurgency in Afghanistan, it’s probably gone now. The chickenhawks of the right have given the Taliban a gift that will keep on giving.

@ETpro Thanks for pointing that out. LOL I had to go back and see if I actually said that, which I didn’t figure I did. My main point was that the Qur’an as well as the flag are just objects but people back each object with emotions that either go against the standing law or even logic. I see people when they head ”flag burning” assume quite quickly it is about Middle Eastern foreigners doing the burning, but there has been plenty of others, sometimes Europe, many times here, that has set Old Glory ablaze. But even though just an object the flag backs a government or the government backs the flag so, there is no faith behind it and it doesn’t transcend the borders of this nation where as the Qur’an extends to many nations not just Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, etc where the US has trouble; it extends to Indonesia, parts of Eastern Russia, etc. where the US had no problems.

@ETpro I know it was you initially, my response is right below yours. And I maintain that no one is saying that it is all of them. But you cannot say that one tiny, flash in the pan splinter group who pulled off an unsuccessful incident can be in any way likened to Islamic extremists who are prolific in number and are being recruited every day to carry out a Jihad against us. It is not unreasonable for people to be nervous about Muslims. There is a better chnce of a Muslim actually being a terrorist thatn a random Catholic. The numbers ar simply no where near the same.
Do you see what I’m saying? You can’t give this little example you are giving the same weight as this very large, very well funded group of extremists. And the fact that they are referred to as extremists , one would think, would be enough to indicate that no one is saying that they are reperesentative of the larger group.

@Trillian I agree that if we exclude wars between nation states, the numbers are weighted toward a Muslim being more dangerous to a Christian than a fellow Christian being a danger. Interestingly, the same may not be true of Muslims. A good deal of the religious and political violence in the Muslim world comes from fellow Muslims. You have fundamentalist groups trying to overthrow secular states and institute their own brand of Sharia law. You have Sunnis versus Shiia versus Sufis. I can’t quite tell the players without a scorecard.

That doesn’t change the fact that it is wrong to condemn 1.2 billion people on the actions of a small handful, and there is no question that is what the vast right-wing loise machine is trying to get its followers to do right now. They want a war with all of Islam. Think of the profits to be had by the Military Industrial Complex. And maybe we can fight it in Israel so Jesus will come back and catch them all up in the clouds.

@ETpro ok, I don’t know enough about that to try to have an intelligent conversation about it; “the vast right-wing loise machine is trying to get its followers to do right now.”
I only had an objection between trying to draw a parallel between two very diferent sized groups and agendas. And the whole absurdity of Timothy McVeigh and the Catholic church. Ridiculous. I object to fallacious arguments on principle.
Cheers! Maybe you could educate me about this thing. I was not aware that anyone wanted a war with all Islam. That too would be absurd, and something that I certainly could not support.

@ETpro How are we trying to start a war with Islam when all we are doing is asking them to move a proposed Mosque farther from ground zero. A place which is high with emotion.

Contrary to what is being spewed by the far left, we simply want it moved. We agree they have the right to build. We are simply saying it will not build bridges between Muslims and non Muslims.

Those of us with close ties to Ground Zero and the Burlington Coat Factory that was hit with the landing gear of one of the planes don’t have a hatred toward Islam. Nor do we have a problem with moderate Muslims. We do have reservations about this Imam. Especially now that we know he has close ties to Faiz Khan.

GA to @missingbite

@missingbite and @rooeytoo, do you know anything about Sufism?

Like, anything, remotely?

Also, are you saying that if someone is associated with a 9/11 truther (Faiz Khan) that means they are an Islamic extremist?

Because holy shit, like everyone on Fluther is suddenly an Islamic extremist. To say nothing of Fox News anchors.

@Qingu Sure I know about Sufism. What is your point?

As to your other point, does that mean you believe that September 11th was an inside job done by our own government? Do you really think you can speak for everyone on Fluther with that? If so, you just lost ALL credibility with at least some of us.

@missingbite, if you know about Sufism, why do you think an Americanized Sufi imam is an extremist?

I certainly don’t believe 9/11 was an inside job. In fact, I’ve argued pretty forcefully against the few fellow members of Fluther who are 9/11 truthers. But according to you, the fact that I’m associated with such people means I’m, apparently, an Islamic extremist? (I’m also pretty sure my best friend from high school is a 9/11 truther—does that make me a member of al-Qaeda outright?)

Out of curiosity, do you know anyone who’s a 9/11 truther? Maybe we should examine the beliefs of everyone in your social network. How can we be sure you’re not an Islamic extremist?

@Qingu By your rational, anyone who claims to be a Christian must be one. We all know that is not true.

Being on the same website as a September 11th truther and starting an association like the American Society for Muslim Advancement with one are COMPLETELY different. If you can’t see that…I’m sorry.

You can look at all my friends if you like. I don’t agree with everything all of them believe. But you can bet your ass I have enough principles and morals not to go into business with someone who has such a FUNDAMENTAL difference of opinions on something so large.

@missingbite, I’m confused about what you mean about being a Christian. Are you saying that Rauf is not actually a Sufi? That would certainly be an interesting claim.

I’d love to look at your friends and people you’ve done business with. I think it would be an interesting experiment. Wanna wager any money that we can’t find any scummy ideas among your associates?

Also, I think you’re confusing 9/11 truthers with Islamic extremists. First of all, don’t like 20% of Americans believe 9/11 was an inside job? More importantly, if I were an Islamic extremist, wouldn’t I be happy that al-Qaeda attacked us? I don’t get your logic that denying al-Qaeda’s actions on 9/11 makes you an “extremist” at all.

Note: I’m bluffing about actually stalking your associates. (I mean, I sure as hell wouldn’t do that.) But I can’t imagine you’d actually want your associates investigated for holding unsavory opinions….

@Qingu First of all I have never stated that September 11th truthers or that Imam Rauf were Islamic extremists. You have stated that I said that at least twice and it simply is your interpretation of what I have said which is that I reservations about this Imam. I certainly give no credibility that thinks September 11th was an inside job. However, Faiz Khan has spewed this rhetoric from the very building they are proposing a “community center”. Doesn’t sound like building bridges to me.

Second, I know what this Imam claims to be, however his actions seem to say something different.

Third, I know you were joking about stalking my friends but really, feel free. If you can come up with something as whacky as them believing our government was involved in September 11th, I would love to know it.

Nice- skateboarding for tolerance.

@missingbite, you said, “Nor do we have a problem with moderate Muslims. We do have reservations about this Imam. Especially now that we know he has close ties to Faiz Khan.”

The obvious implication is that Rauf is not a moderate Muslim (and therefore an extremist Muslim) because of his association with Khan. Is this not what you meant?

Can you please be specific about what “actions” by Rauf say that he’s not a moderate Sufi Muslim?

@Trillian & @missingbite Sorry about the misspelling. I meant to type “Vast Right-Wing *N*oise Machine” and not *l*oise machine.

This Facebook Page captures a good number of links to articles that are pushing for making all of Islam the target.

As it turns out, there already was a Ground-Zero mosque.

It was on the 17th floor of the WTC: http://www.businessinsider.com/there-already-was-a-ground-zero-mosque-2010-9 and http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/nyregion/11religion.html?_r=1&hp

@ETpro Hehehe, I still don’t know what it is. I envision a great, faceless machine/entity like big brother when I see descriptions like that. I guess I’m going to bail on this conversation. I answered the question with my view which was what the OP wanted, and let myself get sidetracked into defending statements I didn’t make and trying to untwist what others made of what I said. I still would like a tutorial from you or some links. I still don’t understand who you aresaying wants a war with Islam, which sounds silly to me. Islam is a religion, not a…well, maybe it is a people but, I mean, we have Islam in this country. Achh,... I have to check other Q’s and get my tired old ass into bed.

@Trillian You may miss this, but I have to respond. The Crusades, The Muslim conquest of Europe, The Holocaust. There have been religious wars and slaughters throughout all of history. A whole series of them are detailed in the Old Testament of the Bible. Here is page with links to the history of religious wars from antiquity to the 20th century.

Here is how at least some in the Muslim world views it.

@Dichter Exactly whom do you want the USA to go to war with that we aren’t currently fighting. Or is your hate so non-focused you just think this nation built almost entirely of immigrants should simply kill anyone who enters and isn’t yet a citizen?

Mao Zedong once blustered to reporter Anna Louise Strong that,“In appearance it [America] is very powerful but in reality it is nothing to be afraid of; it is a paper tiger. Outwardly a tiger, it is made of paper, unable to withstand the wind and the rain. I believe that is nothing but a paper tiger

I say to you what Nikita Khrushchev reminded his erstwhile ally, “the paper tiger has nuclear teeth.”

@Qingu I’m not sure how to spell it out any clearer. I have reservations about Imam Rauf. I don’t feel he is an extremist but he may sympathize with some of their beliefs.

He does not call Hamas a terrorist organization.

Starts foundations with September 11th truthers.

Refuses to consider a relocation of his “community center” even though he knows it hurts and angers about 60+% of the US. (he is now saying anything is open for discussion)

He stated that if we moved it now it would lead to more extremists attacks. (Instead of telling the extremists to back off and rallying all moderates to speak out against extremists)

He claims that “Sharia law pretty much like the Declaration if Independence.” (He fails to mention that Sharia law allows girls as young as 9 to marry and all women are equal to have of a man)

Now, you may want to call these “talking points” but they are all statements made by him and I have seen the video of each. To me, this is less moderate and something else.

He likes to claim, he doesn’t want to insult the extremists because he may lose the dialogue with them…..that dog don’t hunt. You cannot have a reasonable debate with a religious fanatic.

The extremists believe that Rauf is either/both (1) a Sufi heretic who should be killed, and (2) a CIA spy.

I’m not sure why you expect him to tell the extremists anything.

Also, his interpretation of Shariah law is much like most Christians’ interpretations of the Bible. It’s intellectually dishonest and ignores much of the actual text of the Quran, in particular all the parts that are illiberal. Have you actually examined what he thinks counts as “Shariah” or are you assuming that the hippie Sufi guy interprets Shariah the same way as Salafi terrorists do?

And I disagree that you can’t have reasonable debate with a religious fanatic. I disagree with Rauf’s methods (I also disagree with liberal Christians’ methods in debating against, for example, Dominionists), I think Rauf (and liberal Christians) have a dishonest and whitewashed view of the Quran (or Bible), but I certainly place myself (a liberal atheist) on the same side as Rauf and liberal Christians vs. actual fundamentalists. Why don’t you?

Your post also seems to contradict itself. On one hand you expect Rauf to tell extremists to back off, and on the other hand you claim that you can’t have reasonable debate with an extremist (so what would be the point).

As I mentioned before, the US state department has basically used Rauf over the past month as a massive PR push to combat extremism in the Islamic world. He’s spoke at numerous events in the middle east, perhaps not directly to extremists, but his message is certainly that it doesn’t make sense for Muslims to attack America. He has done almost exactly what you said you wanted him to do, and you are still paranoid.

@Qingu Again you put words in my sentence. I am not paranoid. I simply have reservations about his actions. I am not really interested in what version of Sharia he is interested in. I am interested in the fact that he claims it is very close to our Declaration of Independence and that he wants the US to be Sharia compliant.

There is also a difference between reasonable debate and telling extremist to back off by getting all moderate muslims to condemn these extremist. I don’t feel he has done that. You may. I don’t know or presume to know what you think he has done.

@missingbite

”...telling extremist to back off by getting all moderate muslims to condemn these extremist [sic].”

Have all moderate Christians condemned the actions of The Army of God, Eric Rudolph, Christian Identity, or other Christian extremists?

@Brian1946 If they are attacking and killing people…yes, I think they do. I have spoken to many of my Christian friends and publicly condemn the Westboro Baptists for some of the hate they spew. Will all do that, no. But any decent Christian in power of anything, especially one as powerful as Imam Rauf is, should would.

Franklin Graham even called Pastor Jones twice to try to talk him out of burning the Koran.

@missingbite, again, I don’t really understand your logic.

He defines Shariah as compatible with the Declaration of Independence. This is bullshit (I’ve read the Quran); however, it’s also bullshit to say that progressivism is in line with Christianity and the Bible, which is exactly what many liberal Christians claim.

The man is redefining his religion in terms of modern morality, which is really the most we can expect out of religious people beyond simply becoming atheists.

Out of curiosity, are you a religious person yourself?

And praytell… you want him to “get all moderate Muslims to condemn these extremists.” Okay, he just spent 2 weeks in the middle east doing exactly that. At the behest of the US State Department. What exactly were you expecting him to do, above and beyond that? Like, use his Sufi magic to summon a genie that will mind-control Al-Qaeda to not hate us? His actions have been to address your concerns, exactly, and yet you still have them. That’s sort of the definition of paranoia.

@Qingu – out of curiosity, are you a muslim? Or a muslim extremist?

I am actually Osama bin Laden. But don’t tell anyone; I don’t want the feds to track my IP back to my cave.

Just stumbled across this video on youtube Just wish I found that a little earlier.
(!!NSFW / Ironic humor!!)

@Qingu Let’s try this. Let’s say that I am a pastor. Let’s say that I claim to be a moderate who redefines his religious (Christianity) beliefs with modern morality.

However, I refuse to call the KKK a hate organization.

I make statements that insinuate people will be attacked by the KKK if I am forced not to build my Church on property where at least 60% of America doesn’t want it. (doesn’t matter if they have the right or not)

I form an organization for the advancement of White people with a man who preaches that no crosses were ever burned by the KKK but that the government did it as a frame job. (A man who has preached that very belief from the Burlington Coat Factory in question)

But I make a few friends in the government by calling myself a moderate and I make statements about being moderate and not wanting anymore violence.

Do I still sound like a moderate? In my mind, I don’t. I’m not sure what he believes.

Again, Christians, like Franklin Graham have openly come out against Koran burning, cross burning, hate crimes…the list goes on. I have not seen Imam Rauf do that. I have heard his say he wants the US to be Sharia Compliant. With 1.5 Billion Muslims in the world, that leaves a lot of room for interpretation. (Most Muslims are peace loving…..Many aren’t.)

On top of this, why am I as a citizen going to be in favor of this Imam who wants the US to be Sharia compliant? On one hand he states in the US we have freedom of religion so he can build his Mosque, but on the other hand he wants all of America to follow Sharia. What if I don’t want to be Sharia compliant. (his version or any other) That is not freedom of religion.

1. You’re conflating Hamas with al-Qaeda and other extremists groups.

2. Many people who aren’t Muslims, such as myself, refuse to call Hamas a terrorist organization. They were democratically elected. The US has supported paramilitary “freedom fighters” in other countries who act essentially the same as Hamas does.

3. Comparing a liberal Sufi interfaith center with a white power organization is absurd.

You also continue to misunderstand what Rauf means when he says “Shariah.”

And please cite where Rauf has said “he wants the US to be Shariah compliant.” I think you’re bearing false witness.

@Qingu Here is a link where he calls “America a Sharia compliant state.”

I will freely admit I may be wrong about this Imam. That is why I have said over and over I have reservations about him.

Yes, he has said that America is compatible with his extremely liberal interpretation of Sharia.

He has never said he wants America to follow traditional Shariah law.