"Let us not fail to recognize that this week we witnessed Christian extremists behaving in ways made infamous by a monster fascist."

Who said this?:

The American experiment was based on mutual respect, acceptance of differing religious beliefs and common decency. Burning anyone's sacred scripture is an affront to all of these.

The world needs more voices not fewer. More faith not less. It is not God that tells man to hate, kill or stifle thought. It is a fringe understanding of religion. God beckons us to seek His face. I refuse to believe that a loving Father would punish honest and bold questions. But I do believe there must surely be eternal consequences for those who hate or kill in his name.

Let us not fail to recognize that this week we witnessed Christian extremists behaving in ways made infamous by a monster fascist. The reactions by Muslim radicals only mirrored the minds of those in Iran who currently stone people to death for what they call the "sin of homosexuality."

The world has once again come to a point where it cowers at best and, at worst, appeases crazy and dangerous men of all philosophies of God and man. We must again link arms and unite despite our differences against evils that only wish to destroy or enslave no matter the god they hide behind. "The truth shall set you free" is more than a phrase — it is a universal principle that cannot be changed by a bonfire or suicide vest.

History teaches us what happens to those who not only burn books, but also to those who do not respect freedom of speech — especially when most find it vile and offensive.

Not Ed Schultz or Keith Olbermann. Not Michael Moore or Jim Wallis. Or Janeane Garofalo or Arianna Huffington.

The answer is here.

Comments

[fellcolor]

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

[Greer]

my first thought was the one about monkeys and typewriters.

[Tristan Band]

Or about every dog and its day.

[STEVE SMITH]

STEVE SMITH HAVE DOG AND MONKEY AND TYPEWRITER AND CLOCK! STEVE SMITH RAPE ALL THESE THINGS!

STEVE SMITH THINK GLENN BECK MAKE GOOD POINTS! STEVE SMITH RAPE HIM LAST!

[Pedant]

For those confused by the link, here's the correct one:

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2.....and-flags/

[Mike Laursen]

Thanks, I was wondering why Fidel Castro was going on and on about the kindness of God, him being an atheist and all.

[erika]

Ah, thanks! I too was seriously confused as to why Fidel would make such a speech X)

[Pedant]

For those confused by the link, here's the correct one:

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2.....and-flags/

[Johnny Longtorso]

Beck's complaints about Christian extremism and slams of fascists only proves he's a Christian extremist fascist who wants me off my Progressive guard. Believing that feeds my massive left wing ego.

[alan]

Funny, I hold the views diametrically opposite to Glenn Beck. I believe they should be able to build a whatever, 'cultural center', 'mosque', hardly matters on the spot of which they seem from everything I have seen to have a legitimate claim towards. Opponents seem to think that if it is built, Allah will reveal the secrets to turning base metal to gold, cold fusion, and a nanovirus that turns unbelievers into believers, and thus gain an upper hand. No, they are just building a place to talk about how wonderful it is to be wonderful like themselves and call that fuzzy sentiment a religion. Their time, their money, their resources, their delusions. I have a few silly ones of my own, so I don't begrudge theirs.

On the other hand, the Koran should be wholeheartedly burned when you are in possession of a few on the principle that the fewer there are in people's possession than to slight degree the less fucked up the world would be. Of course, the Torah and New Testament have a few problems of their own, Jesus liked to slap around trees that bore sorry fruit which kind of makes me think he was a little crazy for one, but the Koran ranks up there with Mein Kamf with the degree of hatred, bigotry and violence it espouses. That is no exaggeration. Good for Muslims who do everything they can to minimize the horrid thing in its relevancy to modern Islam, but it is what it is, and don't try to bullshit me , I have read great chunks of all three documents, when you dispute the truth of the matter because I wind up respecting you and your religion even less.

[Asharak]

Beck's right, but much of his fan base isn't going to take this too well.

[Seanny Rotten]

Nice going, commenters.

Everything he said made perfect sense.

You people would do well to quit reading Michael Moynihan hit pieces on him and tune into his TV program for one hour a day a few times a week FOR YOURSELVES.

[Hugh Akston]

No thanks. I'll continue to stay away from shouting head TV commentators altogether.

[generic Brand]

Glenn Beck doesn't shout; he cries.

But Seanny-boy is right. I personally would recommend his radio show over his TV show, as it tends to be more sarcastic and just points out the problems with the media in general and the way they misrepresent Beck.

He can be melodramatic at times, but I think he is on point far more than anyone the left puts out, and a lot more than most of the typical blowhards on the right as well. He's certainly not libertarian in the sense of most commenters here, but I think he's got a lot of the inner workings of one.

[Seanny Rotten]

Also, far fairer coverage of GB was turned in late last month by Tim Cavanaugh, http://reason.com/blog/2010/08.....ecause-hes

The coup d' grace:

"Don't you just take from [teachers]. You question them. You read everything they tell you not to read. You read everything they tell you to read, and then you read everything they tell you not to read. You find out why they don't like it. Challenge them. Find out on your own what's true."

How can ANYONE who purports to be a classical liberal not stand up and cheer at that?

[Larry Edelstein]

He talks a lot of nonsense and he says some good stuff too. Yes, this is true.

[ebriosa]

Well, smokes, I'm going to stop believing what my lovely liberal friends are joking about him now. Not that I'm going to give his show the time of day. This is all v. good things. Such good things.

[DRM]

TV? What the hell is that?

[hmm]

Talky picture box.

And GTFO my lawn.

[Tristan Band]

I rather like hit pieces on people I don't like. More muckraking, the better.

[Janeane Garafalo Used Douche]

That's just straight up racist. Cause Beck's a tea fucking, rat bagging, anti-intellectual, batshit crazy, right-wing idealogue. And I'm not.

[-]

You don't even know how to spell your own name.

[hmm]

You find that surprising?

[Almanian]

From what I hear, douches aren't so good at spelling. But I understand they're good with their hands.

[IceTrey]

He may have a point but he ruins it with two delusional ideas.
1. He believes in God
2. He believes "hundreds of thousands" attended his rally.

[J Cuttance]

excellent

[-]

Yeah, but does believing in god make you more or less likely to believe in big government? Most Americans claim to believe in god, yet here we are, teetering on the brink.

[Ron L]

Dunno and don't care. When someone pitches his favorite sky-daddy rather than either freedom or a smaller government, that person isn't worth listening to.

[Tristan Band]

Right.

[generic Brand]

Don't your bias of Beck (or maybe God) get in the way at all. This collection of estimates from Huff Post shows that most groups estimated at least 100,000 attendees. And the speculation is mostly for naught anyways since counts are no longer taken/given by parks services. Even statistically, throwing out the lowest and the highest estimates would still leave most people's guesses in the low to mid hundred thousands.

I don't know which numbers to believe either, but the satellite photo shows that it's definitely a big turnout, and he avoided political speech, unlike his "adversary" for the day, Sharpton.

[IceTrey]

So you agree he's delusional since "low to mid hundred thousands" isn't the, at a minimum, 200,000 that would qualify as "hundreds of thousands"?

[Azathoth]

Look, we'll never know, 'cos we don't count anymore because the counting was consistently showing that leftists weren't doing as good as they were claiming, alright? Jeez.

I seem to remember that this whining started after the nowhere near a million man march

[Jerry]

The American experiment was based on mutual respect, acceptance of differing religious beliefs and common decency.

Like shooting Joseph Smith?

[Jeffersonian]

And didn't like half of the original 13 states have established churches?

[Tristan Band]

Still dumb idea.

[Fidel Castro]

The answer is here.

Fidel Castro?

[James Anderson Merritt]

Scroll up. The link doesn't quite put you where you need to be.

[James Anderson Merritt]

The allusion to Hitler ("monster fascist") gave it away for me. On the other hand, I'm happy to praise Beck when he is right and criticize him when he's wrong. If he wants to use the words "libertarian" or "libertarianism" in a positive way, by all means go right ahead. I just don't want people getting the wrong idea that libertarianism entails such things as, for example, aggressive wars, state endorsement or support of religious organizations, or confiscation of personal property for the purposes of education or health care, just to name a few things that various self-professed "libertarians" or "kind of libertarians" have advocated in recent years. As far as I am concerned, Beck is welcome to cheer libertarianism on all he wants, but he's not a proper spokesman for the philosophy or the movement.

[Tristan Band]

I think nobody is falling for his "I'm a libertarian" act.

[mad libertarian guy]

The terminally libertarded are all over it, and use him as a way to denounce libertarianism.

Of course he could go and praise socialism, Obama and whatever other shit liberals fellate, and they'd still find a way to denigrate him, so their opinion is worth bout as much as what I leave in the bowl every couple of days.

[Tristan Band]

Glenn Beck is a broken clock that is right twice a day, and that millionth monkey that eventually turns out comedy gold. He's also a clever opportunist, knowing how to play ANY situation to his advantage. Sort of like a Top 40 radio host...oh wait.

[Fist of Etiquette]

How delicious, the preceding and following comments.

I don't watch Beck's television show, and I've only a handful of times heard his radio show, which I found funny when he wasn't being insufferably melodramatic. I really only know him by the narrative told to me (which is to say, apparently, not at all).

[Ted S.]

I wouldn't even know where to find his program on the radio.

[Fist of Etiquette]

I don't even own a television.

[SIV]

In the AM on the AM

[hmm]

I'm AM in the PM, and the AM. Thus is the life of a man with a car (I use the term car loosely here) radio that only gets AM.

[Max]

Glenn Beck should suck Ron Paul's dick and snowball you wannabe Republicunts.

[Almanian]

You really do go in for the homosexuality, don't you, Max?

NTTAWWT...

[heller]

No homo.

[hmm]

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Right?

[Tony]

Well Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann, Michael Moore, Jim Wallis, Janeane Garofalo, or Arianna Huffington would probably agree, and nobody would have pat them on the back for taking a reasonable stance for once. Glenn Beck: the special needs pundit.

[Tulpa]

That's because taking this stance doesn't go against their side's talking points.

I applauded Olbermann when he ripped into Obama on the indefinite detention issue, for instance.

[generic Brand]

Except that when those 6 found out Glenn Beck was behind the quote, none of them would want to agree with him. They would ignore it, or more likely, discredit what Beck said by attacking Beck himself.

[The GB]

I'm a closed-minded psychopath with daddy issues, hence so is everyone else!

[jtuf]

Burning a Koran is in poor taste, especially when the guy can make the same point by posting a smiley face and labeling it "Mohamed". Serious, if his goal is to get Muslim fanaticals to start a hissy fit, he's working WAY to hard.

*Sigh* This month is protest season in NYC, so, I don't have time for the research, but it would be really neat to look at the voting records of all the folks at Capital Hill who are condemning the Koran burning and see which ones voted for the federal grant that funded the "Pissing Jesus" back in the 1980s.

[Tulpa]

Urine is not the same thing as fire.

Well, except the day after a date with Warty.

[Seamus]

So everyone would have been defending Rev. Terry Jones if he had proposed dumping the Koran into a vat of his own urine instead of burning it?

[Fire Tiger]

No, thats not what was being said. He would have to be classified by the state as an "artist", get government funding, THEN drop it in a vat of piss. Going straight from get Koran to piss vat is just plain rude. Besides, due to the fact that in this country Muslims are in the minority, without the governments blessing first it can be considered a hate crime.

[Jorj X. McKie]

Are you referring to my beloved Piss Christ?

[Brendan]

Wow, dropping a Andres Serrano reference 25 years later. Awesome. Obviously he and the Florida redneck preacher with no actual followers have tons in common. And I don't recall the house and senate having a vote on Piss Christ. It never made it out of committee.

[alan]

Wow, dropping a Andres Serrano reference 25 years later. Awesome. Obviously he and the Florida redneck preacher with no actual followers have tons in common. And I don't recall the house and senate having a vote on Piss Christ. It never made it out of committee.

What is awesome is you actually think it matters. If a group of fundamentalist Muslims stoned to death a homosexual in Gainesville, Florida tonight who would likely be the first to speak out, liberals who are afraid of Muslims (they often call this fear, 'tolerance') or Reverend Jones?

[alan]

Hell, the example does not even need to be that stark. If the shit hit the fan, floods, storms, etc. who would most likely have your back? The fifty members of the most fundamentalist Babtist church in your community, or the fifty people in your town who spend their evenings watching Rachel Maddow?

It's okay if you would prefer not to answer as too many of your absurd cultural supremacist notions at stake. Would not want to make anyone feel uncomfortable.

[Ivan]

Good point jtuf. I wonder if a depiction of Mohamed placed in a jar of pig piss would be considered art and worthy of an award sponsored in part by the National Endowment for the Arts.

[James Anderson Merritt]

What gets my attention is that people have actually died in the Middle East, during protests of a Koran-burning that never happened and probably won't. Is that better, worse, or the same as dying to capture WMDs that never existed? In those rare moments when I think of the world as a horrible place, it is such senseless things that come to mind as evidence to justify the pessimism.

[SIV]

Hey look who "hooked up" at the DC 9/12 rally.

[MWG]

Dammit SIV! You ruined what was turning into a wonderful weekend.

[Ted S.]

Is that Dave Weigel and his girlfriend?

[heller]

So am I going to be the only one to point out that Beck just equated burning Korans to suicide bombing?

[heller]

He also compared Koran burners to Hitler.

So why is anyone taking Beck seriously here? This is a guy who compares anything that moves to Hitler. He is the king of Godwinning. He is the closest thing on television to an annoying little troll who cuts and pastes history from wikipedia whenever he's in an argument.

[Seamus]

Except that burning books *is* one of the things Hitler actually did, and which we think illustrates what a bad guy he was. (Another one was trying to stamp out smoking.)

[Some dude]

Hitler tried to burn all copies of books in hopes of actually getting rid of them so people couldn't read them.

Burning your own copy of a book is more of a symbolic thing (speech).

[cornholio]

Hitler also had a mustache. To me, this is pretty much proof positive that any guy with a mustache is a mass murderer.

[generic Brand]

Terry Jones has a mustache. A pretty sweet one too, actually.

[Ted S.]

You're turned on by moustaches?

[generic Brand]

I don't have to be turned on by mustaches to appreciate the good ones.

[Some dude]

That was not entirely coherent. What about Koran burners? Are they amongst the voices the world needs more voices of? And I agree he Godwinned himself.

[Jorj X. McKie]

I think he said the world need more faith and the United Colors of Benetton is having a fall sale.

[John]

I agree. And we don't have blastphemy laws in this country. I don't like it when people burn the flag or burn the bible. But it is the price I gladly pay for living in a free country. Just because I don't like it, doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to do it.

[JW]

...blastphemy...

John'z Law looms large.

[Draco]

Who said this?

...More faith not less.

Definitely not Ayn Rand.

Glenn Beck is a great example of why Ayn Rand never wanted to make common cause with religious conservatives.

What Glenn is doing here is a very common thing among theocons when any "major world religion" is ridiculed: no matter how many disagreements they may have with the competing religion, they close ranks around the greater principle that people should always respect the irrational when it comes in the form of a religion.

[Trespassers W]

When I read it (before seeing the author), I thought "this isn't someone who is fundamentally on my side". And I'm going to stick by that.

[MAX]

I EAT POOP

[POOP]

YOU EAT ME

[MAX]

YEP

[frog in a pot]

"The mosque protester crowd from yesterday was pretty terrifying and even MORE racist than the teabagger people:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c.....php?img=12"

[cornholio]

On the contrary, most colonies were based on religious separatism (pretty much all of New England, plus Maryland), or commercial profit (most of the middle and southern colonies).

[air max]

Good article! Thank you so much for sharing this post.Your views truly open my mind.

[Hazel Meade]

Ya know, I think the Koran-burning preacher is a moron being deliberately offensive for no reason.

On the other hand, burning Korans is free speech, and he's got every right to do it.

And if it were done by someone a bit more sophisticated, it would kind of send the message that Muslims should chill out a bit about people drawing mohammed cartoons.

You know, we could be burning Korans on the street corners, so next time someone draws a picture of Mohammed please STFU.

If only someone was doing it in the name of freedom of speech rather than a retarded "my religion is better than yours" statement, then it would actually be a daring and impressive act.

[Brett L]

Burning books may be a right, but its always wrong. Too easily mistaken for anti-intellectualism.

[Hazel Meade]

Well, it's not like one would be attempting to burn every copy of the Koran in existance. Subtle diference from book burning pogroms in the past. It's one think to burn the symbol of something you disagree with. Another thing to use the state to try to round up every copy of the book in existance and destroy them all.

[alan]

Well, the thing about that, The Intellectual is dead, and some us live for the purpose of feasting on his remains.

[alan]

Oh, wait . . . that was merely a dream I once had involving David Brooks. Never mind.

[AlmightyJB]

"Burning books may be a right, but its always wrong."

But how else am I suppose to get all of that wonderful Koran smoke flavor when cooking my pork chops?

[Draco]

I give you Draco's Rule on burning holy books.

[Some Guy]

I disagree. Burning books in general is not my thing, but if I was going to burn a book would have no more problem burning a Koran or a Bible than I would burning Mein Kampf.

[Mohamed]

The irony is that I only commanded Muslims not to depict me with cartoons etc...

[Trespassers W]

Libertarians definitely oppose the burning of Koreans.

[SIV]

RIP-Dr. Miles Bennell

[hmm]

Preachy self righteous atheists are as, or even more annoying than preachy self righteous religious people.

just thought I'd throw that out there

[Some Guy]

No atheist has ever thrown a hissy fit because a guy at the mall failed to echo his beliefs.

[hmm]

I'm not sure about any mall issues, but atheists have purged religions in the name of the eliminating the opiate of the masses...

[Some Guy]

Which religions have been purged where and when?

Were they purged in the name of atheism or in the name of eliminating competition for some leader-as-god?

[Hazel Meade]

No atheist has ever rioted because someone *didn't* draw a picture of Mohammed.

[Tulpa]

Bad timing, sir. This forum was full of people complaining about how none of the political talk shows question religion the other day.

[Some Guy]

Didn't read that thread, but personally, I'm glad that there's no political talk show that echos my views if they would be represented in a manner of any political talk show I've ever seen.

Would have to read it to comment much further.

[Azathoth]

no, they stick to tha intarwebz

[alan]

Beck's essay was annoying for the reason Hazel listed, as it was a 'come, my fellow theosians, let us throw the secularist out of the public square and then divide the spoils amongst ourselves. Ahmed, you wish for women to wear veils in public, Ari, you wish gentiles reinstate usury laws upon themselves, and I wish to ban alcoholic beverages served at stadiums; fine, we will accommodate and do all three.'

[heller]

Ari, you wish gentiles reinstate usury laws upon themselves

WTF? You know nothing of Jewish law.

[alan]

lighten up, fool.

[heller]

No, homo.

[alan]

I know plenty about the history of of usury. In a joke involving the three religions in conspiracy with one another, the twist I put in there was most apt. If your tiny little head can't grasp it, keep the fuck shut and up.

[alan]

You rained on my joke, you son of a bitch. That is something I never forgive or forget.

[alan]

Ha. Ha. Just kidding.

[alan]

Hmm, maybe it is to our advantage that they are at each others throats instead of in agreement.

[Hazel Meade]

Secularism was born from religious conflict, so yes.

Eventually, I hope, Muslims will get the point that they are better off tolerating differences of religious opinions. They really don't understand the reasons for the separation of church and state yet. But they are discovering them now painfully.

[Trespassers W]

As pointed out recently on xkcd, people who feel the need to point that out are more preachy and self-righteous than either.

NB I am exempt from the meta-argument, no tagbacks!

[Some Guy]

More faith not less.

No, I think we'd be much better off with less.

[High School Dropout]

Lets throw love in there too for good measure, would hate for there to be anything in the world that can't be quantified scientifically.

[heller]

DERP.

[Some Guy]

would hate for there to be anything in the world that can't be quantified scientifically.

Why? What bad things are a result of love? (Assuming jealousy is considered distinct from love, which I would tend to believe.)

[barfman]

*barf*

[HarHar]

The American experiment was based on mutual respect, acceptance of differing religious beliefs and common decency.

And thus "the American experiment" and Islam are incompatible.

Beck made a nice touchy-feely non-sequitur, so let's all sing a song!

[jay]

"More faith not less."

Less, please.

[rech]

As Drew Carey put it, I don't care what the hell people do as long as I don't have to pay for it. Although I suspect that these copies of the Koran were probably subsidised by the Government somehow. I have to say, if I was going to get all upset about something with no connection to me, it would probably be the murders of "adulterers" (i.e. rape victims) in Iran etc.

[Fire Tiger]

Personally, for me, it would be anything that that involves the phrase "Today the US signed a UN treaty on ...."

[rech]

"One person held up a Quran and a lighter to make a point, but police said they removed both items as a precaution. As Jones had been told by Gainesville authorities, open burnings require permits"

Is this true? Can I burn my old textbooks in my front garden without a permit? Do the cops confiscate American flags from lefties marching against wars if they look like they are going to burn them?

[Some Guy]

Hard to tell what the laws of that specific town would be, but in general burning a large pile of books (or whatever else) may require a permit, but a single book should not. They should have put it in a grill, then they would be fine.

I can't speak to the actions of cops at anti-war rallies in your imagination.

[Azathoth]

While the pastor in Florida called off his plan to burn, a number of others did burn or destroy copies of the Koran. One near Ground Zero. Another in front of the White House. And radical Muslims around the world responded by burning American flags.

Ummm....no. They started burning those flags before any qurans were burned--and, until this article, only had major news about the fact that Americans caved once again in the face of threats of unspecified violence.

Terry Jones didn't burn any qurans. Terry Jones stopped because, though he had the legal right to burn all the qurans he wanted, doing so would cause all manner of bad things to happen. Doing so may have been legally right, but it was wrong in a human sense. Wrong because of what it would engender.

Many at reason support this while condemning those who apply the same standard to the Cordoba House.

[Jed Rothwell]

You wrote: "Doing so may have been legally right, but it was wrong in a human sense. Wrong because of what it would engender. . . . Many at reason support this while condemning those who apply the same standard to the Cordoba House."

I am confused. How does the same standard apply? What would building Cordoba House "engender"? Would it endanger someone's life? You seem to be saying it would cause "all manner of bad things to happen." Like what?

The only bad outcome I can think of would be that right wing blowhards will continue to kvetch and moan and make political hay from it.

The Cordoba House is supremely unimportant. Furthermore, it is to built on private property in an area zoned okay for churches. The Constitution clearly protects the right to build it there. The controversy is nonsense ginned up for political advantage. Anyone offended by the Cordoba House should get a life and mind your own business. There is really nothing more to be said.

[Azathoth]

The burning of the qurans was an offense to Islam--so everyone got on their high horse and said don't do it.

And Terry Jones didn't do it.

The placement of the Cordoba House is an offense to most Americans---so everybody got on their high horse and told those Americans that their feelings don't matter--only the feelings of Muslims matter, because, after all, if we hurt their feelings they'll blow shit up and kill people.

Both cases, Jed, were about people doing what they wanted with their property, both cases involved someone doing something with their property that would offend a large group of people. But the only group whose feelings seem to matter is the group who riots and kills when their feelings are hurt.

Why, Imam Rauf has pointed out to us that if the Cordoba House moves now, that same group of people will get offended, and violent.

And Terry Jones didn't burn any qurans. Terry Jones understood that the offense he was set to incite was better left unincited.

Imam Rauf, fortunately, is well aware that Americans won't riot or kill if the Cordoba house is built. They won't even riot or kill when jihadis start making the site an Islamist tourist attraction--they may not even riot or kill when Rauf tries to get the adnan on loudspeakers.

Because we just kvetch.

[Hazel Meade]

Both cases, Jed, were about people doing what they wanted with their property, both cases involved someone doing something with their property that would offend a large group of people. But the only group whose feelings seem to matter is the group who riots and kills when their feelings are hurt.

This.

[Some Guy]

The burning of the qurans was an offense to Islam--so everyone got on their high horse and said don't do it.

I never heard anyone say such a thing. Lots of people (including myself) said that it would be bad to do because it would be great PR for our enemies, but that was about it.

The placement of the Cordoba House is an offense to most Americans

99.99999% of which would have never known it existed without manufactured controversy (same for the Koran burning, but he did his own publicity on that.)

so everybody got on their high horse and told those Americans that their feelings don't matter

Nobody has the right to not be offended. Exactly the same as in the case of burning holy books - the First Amendment trumps your feelings.

only the feelings of Muslims matter, because, after all, if we hurt their feelings they'll blow shit up and kill people.

Nobody ever said anything remotely like that.

But the only group whose feelings seem to matter is the group who riots and kills when their feelings are hurt.

Can you expand on this? How are you measuring whose feelings "seem to matter"? If a church wanted to build a YMCA near where some KKK members lynched a bunch of people once, and on the other side of the country some random Imam announced he was going to burn a Bible, how do you think either of those things would have played out?

My guess is that nobody would care about the first one at all, which would be the correct response, and 90% of those loudly defending Terry Jones (not his right, but his choice) would be loudly condemning the Imam and demanding that he be stopped.

Imam Rauf, fortunately, is well aware that Americans won't riot or kill if the Cordoba house is built. They won't even riot or kill when jihadis start making the site an Islamist tourist attraction--they may not even riot or kill when Rauf tries to get the adnan on loudspeakers.

Who knows what Americans might do in any given imaginary scenario that will never happen.

[Azathoth]

So, you missed General Petraeus saying 'if Jones burns qurans Muslims will be incensed and kill our troops'? You missed all the pundits castigating Jones because he might put our troops and innocent people in the path of pissed off Muslims?

[Some Guy]

Yes, I did hear that. Which one of my claims did that contradict? (Hint: "This will cause violence" != "We care about their feelings")

[Jed Rothwell]

Azathoth write:

"The burning of the qurans was an offense to Islam--so everyone got on their high horse and said don't do it."

I don't see many people on high horses. I could not care less how many Korans this guy burns. I don't care Moslem sensitivities. The only reason why it is ill advised is because it is likely to get U.S. soldiers killed. It is exactly as you said: "all manner of bad things [will] happen." True for burning Korans. But not true for building mosques. You haven't given a single reason why they are equivalent, or even similar.

Obviously, Jones was within his rights but equally obvious it is a stupid, unpatriotic thing to do when our soldier's lives are at stake. What would he say to the families of dead soldiers? "I was within my rights"?

"The placement of the Cordoba House is an offense to most Americans---so everybody got on their high horse and told those Americans that their feelings don't matter . . ."

Yeah. That's because those feelings don't matter. I don't give a damn whether the mosque offends Americans or not, any more than I care about how the Moslems feel about nitwits burning their Koran. The Constitution trumps both. If there were no American soldiers in the line of fire none of this would matter.

I wouldn't stop burning Korans just because the lunatic fringe Moslems might attack us again. They don't need a reason to attack us. If we seriously want to stop them we should stop using so much oil, and bankrupt them.

By the way the mosque is probably not an offense to "most" Americans. I believe public opinion is evenly divided. Some for, some against, and a lot like me who couldn't care less where they build their mosque.

"Both cases, Jed, were about people doing what they wanted with their property, both cases involved someone doing something with their property that would offend a large group of people. . . ."

If offending people was the issue none of this would matter. It only matters because we are a state of war and burning a Koran will result in casualties. After the Battle of Midway The Chicago Tribute was technically within its rights to published leaked information that Navy code breakers played a key role in the victory. FDR's administration decided it would be too difficult to prosecute them because too much information would leak out in open court. Still, it was a highly unpatriotic and dangerous thing to do.

"But the only group whose feelings seem to matter is the group who riots and kills when their feelings are hurt."

It is not their feelings that matter! No one cares about their feelings. I care about our soldiers getting shot. After our soldiers all come home and are no longer targets, then it will no longer matter how many Korans anyone burns, or whether those people in their countries riot because of it.

It is purely pragmatic. War restricts freedom, unfortunately.

[Azathoth]

Obviously, Jones was within his rights but equally obvious it is a stupid, unpatriotic thing to do when our soldier's lives are at stake. What would he say to the families of dead soldiers? "I was within my rights"?

So, that horse isn't high to you? Do you not see that you've just done it?

Muslims threaten to kill over some backwoods preacher saying he's gonna burn some qurans, so he's an 'unpatriotic nitwit'.

What about the Muslims? Where is the rancor towards them? Even in your post Jones is called names, but we must allow for Islamic sensitivities. Why?

It is all about feelings. It is Muslims feelings that caused them to riot. It is Americans feelings that cause them to protest the placement of the Cordoba House.

But, only one group is killing over their feelings--and it is the same group that wants to build a mosque.

Now, Rauf says that those same people will riot and possibly kill if he voluntarily move the Cordoba House.

Terry Jones voluntarily gave up his protest because it would possibly harm American soldiers and civilians(American and not). His freedom was restricted.

The builders of Cordoba House know we cave when violence is threatened by Islam--because Islam frequently carries out that threat--so they're using that threat to bring other feelings into play. Fear. Fear of what Muslims will do if they don't get their way.

We have to stop caving in when they threaten violence.

[Jed Rothwell]

You wrote: "It is all about feelings. . . . But, only one group is killing over their feelings--and it is the same group that wants to build a mosque."

You are completely wrong. This is a war and both sides are killing. They are killing because they hate us for various reasons (including imaginary Koran burnings), and we are killing them because we hate them for various other reasons, such the 9/11 attacks (and imaginary Iraqi WMD).

It is not about feelings. It is about guns and IEDs. U.S. soldiers are fighting a war with Muslim extremists in two countries. They are being shot at, and they are shooting back and dropping bombs.

If there were no wars in progress then the Muslim extremists might want to shoot us, but they would have few opportunities to do so. As it is, thousands of heavily armed Americans are right in their country, knocking down doors and looking for them, in order to kill them. The Americans are just asking to be ambushed or blown up with IEDs. A nitwit burning Korans in Florida will exacerbate the hate and help fill the ranks of the Taliban. That is the only reason he should refrain from doing it, even though it is his right.

"We have to stop caving in when they threaten violence."

We are conducting two full scale wars! We have killed over 100,000 people, and spent a trillion dollars. How much more aggressive do you want us to be? If this is "caving" I would hate to see your idea of an aggressive response. What do you recommend, nuclear weapons? Invade Iran as well?

For that matter, why are you so surprised that they hate us? They have darn good reasons. If their people were swarming through our towns, knocking down doors and shooting people, I'll bet you wouldn't love them, even if you hated the people they were killing. Look at the U.S. support for tyranny in the Middle East for the past 60 years, in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. Al qaeda is engaged in a civil war against the Saudi government that spilled over to us, because we propped up the Saudi government.

[Azathoth]

Is 'hate' not a feeling where you come from?

Tell, me, what war was in progress when Islamic pirates attacked American ships a few years after our founding. What had we done then? There was no Israel to back, no Iraq or Iran to fight over. What had we done?

What war were we fighting on 9/11? The majority of the hijackers were Saudis--when have we been at war with Saudi Arabia?

The ranks of Islamis terrorists fill because we exist. We are the Dar al-Harb. We must be made to convert.

Islam has been fighting this war for over a thousand years, and they will continue to fight it until they are stopped--by force. That our retailiation upsets them, I have no doubt. If they would stop attacking us, we'd have no need or reason to retaliate.

And we are not being agressive at all. we are being defensive.

[Jed Rothwell]

Azathoth wrote: "Tell, me, what war was in progress when Islamic pirates attacked American ships a few years after our founding."

That was some time ago. The British attacked after that, in 1812. By your logic, we are permanently at war with Great Britain.

"What war were we fighting on 9/11? The majority of the hijackers were Saudis--when have we been at war with Saudi Arabia?"

We are not at war with Saudi Arabia. On the contrary, we are fighting on behalf of the Saudi Royal Family. In other words, we are fighting on behalf of tyrants against the al queda fascists who want to overthrow them. Plus we are paying for all sides, with oil money.

In my opinion, the Saudi Royal Family is not worth a single drop of American blood, nor would I be willing to sacrifice the lives of my children to ensure freedom in Iraq or Iran. That's their problem, not ours. I am sure we could easily reduce oil consumption with existing technology enough to beggar the lot of them. Impoverished countries and impoverished rebel movements will never attack us.

"The ranks of Islamis terrorists fill because we exist."

We have nothing to do with it, except that we support various tyrants in the Middle East, against our own interests, because of oil.

"And we are not being agressive at all. we are being defensive."

I would say that killing 100,000 people is aggressive. Whether it is justified or not is another question, but I would not call that unaggressive. Anyway, you seem to think we should be doing more to attack them. You should tell us what you have in mind. How about nuclear weapons? Do you think we should try to exterminate or enslave Muslims worldwide? How much more "defense" do we need?

I suggest it would be far more effective to simply bankrupt these people, something we could do easily, for far less than the cost of these wars, while making a large profit to boot. I do not see why we need to drop bombs and shoot people when we can easily fix the problem by peaceful means. Of course I have no objection to shooting members of al queda but there are not many of them.

[Azathoth]

I do not see why we need to drop bombs and shoot people when we can easily fix the problem by peaceful means.

We can? So they'll just sit quietly by and watch us bankrupt them? Are you that naive?

I have said that we should have gone after Saudi Arabia in other posts. I stand by that. In fact, I think we could end this quickly if we took over Saudi Arabia.

I do not really care about the numbers save that they died for nothing. The war is not being fought correctly, so it will drag on, killing and killing until there is someone with the courage to fight it properly and end it.

[Jed Rothwell]

Ah. So that's your solution. Thanks for showing your cards, as it were. You think "we could end this quickly if we took over Saudi Arabia."

It is a little unclear what it is we would "end quickly" by this method, but okay.

That isn't quite up to the level of nuclear weapons . . .

It does not seem like a practical solution. You would have to come up with a casus belli, and overrule the objections raised by every other nation and by a large fraction of the U.S. population and Congress. Plus you may have noted that taking over Iraq did not work out well.

You accuse me of being unrealistic when I suggest we bankrupt Saudi Arabia by phasing out most oil with technology such as plug-in hybrids. I would say that my plan is highly realistic and well-grounded in reality compared to your plan to invade yet another sovereign nation for no particular reason, or basically because you imagine that 1.2 billion people have it in for us because they are Muslims.

[Suprashoesweb]

Supra Shoes
Supra Footwear

[replica Gucci handbags]

http://www.taobao-wholesale.com
(A)Our company can offer you top quality brand shoes such ascheap LV handbags Jordan 1-23,nike shox (Nz Oz R3 R4 R5 Turbo), Air Max (LTD TN 90 95 97 2003 2004 2005180 360), Air force one,James, Dunks,prada,Gucci Puma shoes.chanel handbags online.top quality handbags such as lv ,jimmy,coach,D&G
Fendi,gucci,chanel,burberry,chanel,juicy.etc
(B) Generally, goods are delivery by EMS fast and safely
(C) Our Company accept payment by WESTERN UNION.
(D) Welcome to inquire us for interesting questions.

[varados]

I nearly came down with diabetes after reading the entire post by Beck. Hackneyed and dripping with sentimentality. Ugh.