Lighten up, Francis (koran burning content.)

Fletch1 wrote: We are putting our arms around our enemy and it makes me sick.

What if we are?

Matthew 5:44 "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"

But I don't think that's what's happening at all. You define an enormous group by the feelings, actions and rhetoric of a few. That's the irony of this thread. People are doing the same with this guy in Florida. He doesn't represent me, but he is being used as an example. "See, I told you the Americans hate Muslims." That guy in Florida hates Muslims and sounds like you do as well. But I and many others here do not.

There's a lot of chest pounding and calls to arms. Everyone concerned we need to get "them" before "they" get "us". But I think there are a lot more among us who are a bit more meek. I wouldn't presume that I have more right to be here than anyone else. Well, since I started with Matthew, let's end there as well.

Matthew 5:5 "Blessed [are] the meek: for they shall inherit the earth."

Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

I like turtles!

friedgreencorrado wrote: What if, for example, there was no truck?

Then no harm. That's not an answer to the question.

But you missed my point. I wasn't trying to reason anyone into the kingdom, nor modernize Pascal's wager.

I was suggesting two different understandings, only one of which can be right. Makes no difference which one.

My question was, should those with an understanding that there is imminent harm coming go out of there way to say so (whether or not they are right)? And further, should the person they are telling then be offended if he happens to disagree?

The outcome is irrelevant.

The strangeness to me is the enormous number of people standing in the street who will simply take offense and rant at the wrongness of the people with a different understanding expressing so. This is the essence of intolerance, and the most shocking part is that the guy in the street will always be complaining how intolerant the others are, instead of respecting their view and appreciating their efforts on his behalf.

It would be morally wrong for the observers to not speak up, because it violates their core understanding. To not speak up is to show indifference and disdain for the guy in the street. It's not an insult when someone shares their faith- it is a compliment.

Freedom of speech is not defined by the desire of the recipient to hear the particular speech. It is defined by the speaker's desire to express it.

Osterkraut wrote: I like turtles!

Why do you hate freedom?

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

I looked at what I wrote and found it didn't come out right, especially what I quoted in Matt 5:44. I'm not a religous person at all. Christ spoke against the Scribes and Pharisees who were the "religous" at the time who thought of themselves as better and the ones who judged other men. I do NOT hate anyone, including Muslims. I would be a hypocrite if that were true. Today, if Christians do not go along with what everyone else believes, then we are the ones full of hate, which is not true. The first Commandment is There shall be no other gods before me. So let me rephrase...I will not put my arms around another god. I would however, put my arms around my enemy and try to show them the love of God, the one from The Bible. Thats what I originally meant. It didn't come out correctly. There is only ONE way to Heaven. John 3:16. People say Christians are exclusive. But God said "whosoever will..come" Whosoever is EVERYONE! My God is great and full of love and mercy.

The more a philosophy or religion has to tell me about how wrong everyone who doesn't agree with them is, the less likely I am to give credence to everything they have to say.

Frankly, I think the Buddhist's and the Sikh's are the most sensible.

So do I.

SVreX wrote: The strangeness to me is the enormous number of people standing in the street who will simply take offense and rant at the wrongness of the people with a different understanding expressing so. ... Freedom of speech is not defined by the desire of the recipient to hear the particular speech. It is defined by the speaker's desire to express it.

So, what you are saying then is that its fine for someone to say whatever they want to someone else with no regard for whether or not they wish to hear this "complimentary expression" but then you are surprised that it might not be well received.

Lets take religion out of it.

"Say there you disgusting fat body! I know how to eat well and thus be saved from a terrible death like you will have from being a fat, flesh eater. Let me help you not be a disgusting, flesh eating fat body any longer"

"You are just a woman with a small brain and no ability to think properly. Let me do all that for you."

I could go on with more hilarious examples involving homosexuals, blacks and poor people but... I have to go finish wrenching on something.

"Loud Noises"

Salanis wrote: Frankly, I think the Buddhist's and the Sikh's are the most sensible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182

One of the local suburbs has a high Sikh population. Other than murdering wives/daughters, stabbings, drug dealing and plenty of involvement with the local RCMP, they seem like very nice people. I realise this doesn't mean EVERY Sikh is a bad person, just saying there's bad people in every group.

Last year, one of the local parades had huge floats supporting the terrorist that bombed flight 182 and when the parade organisers were called on it, the local politicians were called "goose stepping racists".

I've never heard of any Bhuddist terrorists but that doesn't mean there aren't any.

Shawn

Trans_Maro wrote: One of the local suburbs has a high Sikh population. Other than murdering wives/daughters, stabbings, drug dealing and plenty of involvement with the local RCMP, they seem like very nice people. I realise this doesn't mean EVERY Sikh is a bad person, just saying there's bad people in every group.

My experience is fairly limited. I did get a chance to visit a local Sikh temple. They fed us lots of really tasty food.

I'm biased towards people who feed me well.

I suppose Buddhists could blow people up as long as they did so mindfully.

The Onion: - God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule

SVreX wrote:

friedgreencorrado wrote: What if, for example, there was no truck?

Then no harm. That's not an answer to the question.

It wasn't meant to be an answer, merely a (perhaps too pithy?) remark to tempt you to consider how such behavior is viewed by someone with a very different perspective than your own.

SVreX wrote: But you missed my point. I wasn't trying to reason anyone into the kingdom, nor modernize Pascal's wager. I was suggesting two different understandings, only one of which can be right. Makes no difference which one. My question was, should those with an understanding that there is imminent harm coming go out of there way to say so (whether or not they are right)? And further, should the person they are telling then be offended if he happens to disagree?

Well, it depends on the social situation!.. Personally, I no longer believe that gods exist. I won't go into the reasons why, because it's irrelevant to this particular discussion. But in order to make an attempt to explain why somebody who lives without gods might be offended, I feel I have to say this:

Unlike most atheists in Western Europe or Eastern Asia (Japan and Australia in particular), most atheists in the US at the moment are very often "ex-theists". I was actually once a Christian. To the atheist that was once a theist, atheism is not a "choice". It is a "discovery", one that is often achieved through a long and often painful process. I'm not trying to belittle the desire of a theist to "help" a fellow human being, but to many American-born atheists, such behavior is comparable to someone walking into an AA meeting and offering everyone there a nice, cold beer. I'm not saying that theists do this in any spirit of hatred or anger, I'm just trying to explain why some atheists ("full disclosure"..yes, that includes myself) get angry when a theist who means to "do good" confronts me with the same old things that actually started my doubts about my old religion in the first place. I can comprehend that a theistic individual actually wants to help me, but I have to explain that to someone who has discarded theism..their "help" is (IMO, of course) no different than the "help" of a homeless schizophrenic that wishes to push me away from the place where his family's private jet will crash.

Which brings us back to the practical reality of when theists decide to bother other people. If I'm just standing around at a party, their behavior doesn't make me angry. If I'm trying to catch a train on time, so I can get to work, their behavior does.

SVreX wrote: The outcome is irrelevant.

Agreed, if we're talking philosophically, but I must disagree if we're talking about such behavior on the part of theists in certain social situations. Again, it's cool if I have nothing else to do (as in this thread! ), but can be a serious PITA if someone's making an "effort on his (my) behalf" by blocking the door of the post office when I need to get in there to mail my rent check to the landlord on time (true story, BTW..street preacher blocked the entrance to the place. If it had been a man my own age or younger instead of a 60yr old woman, I would have physically removed the person from the doorway).

SVreX wrote: The strangeness to me is the enormous number of people standing in the street who will simply take offense and rant at the wrongness of the people with a different understanding expressing so. This is the essence of intolerance, and the most shocking part is that the guy in the street will always be complaining how intolerant the others are, instead of respecting their view and appreciating their efforts on his behalf.

Please recall my "free beer at the AA meeting" metaphor above.

SVreX wrote: It would be morally wrong for the observers to not speak up, because it violates their core understanding. To not speak up is to show indifference and disdain for the guy in the street. It's not an insult when someone shares their faith- it is a compliment.

Unfortunately, SVreX..I must emphatically disagree. I will concede that the individual theist wishes such behavior to be a "compliment", but I must remind folks that for those of us who no longer share their beliefs, it is no different than the behavior of the rhetorical schizophrenic I described earlier in this post. Again, the timing of the thiest's behavior is a key point. When we're all at a party together, it's often a source of discussion that we'll all enjoy.

When it's "in my way" when I'm trying to keep a roof over my head, or teach my child about real life, or trying to keep my woman happy, my level of enjoyment about a topic I consider moot is very much reduced.

SVreX wrote: Freedom of speech is not defined by the desire of the recipient to hear the particular speech. It is defined by the speaker's desire to express it.

Agreed. No one has the "right" to not be offended. After all, it is the speech we disagree with the most that needs the most "protection".

I can only hope the theistic would-be "saviors" (if you'll forgive the pun) I've had the misfortune to meet IRL that recive my vitriolic comments about their desire to push me "out of the way" of a truck that only they can see are capable of the ability to reach a similar understanding of the issue.

Your mileage may vary.

friedgreencorrado wrote:

SVreX wrote: Freedom of speech is not defined by the desire of the recipient to hear the particular speech. It is defined by the speaker's desire to express it.

Agreed. No one has the "right" to not be offended. After all, it is the speech we disagree with the most that needs the most "protection".

So then, we are in agreement.

The Constitution protects religious speech (which includes book burning, although I may not think it is a good idea).

Its a goddamn glued together piece of pine fiber stained by some ink forming squiggly's and some artwork. Once people come to realize that, we'll be slightly closer to a sane society.

Oh, and I hate pretty much every response to this kerfluffle.

GregTivo wrote: Oh, and I hate pretty much every response to this kerfluffle.

My nominee for "Word of the Day": kerfuffle

GregTivo wrote: Its a goddamn glued together piece of pine fiber stained by some ink forming squiggly's and some artwork. Once people come to realize that, we'll be slightly closer to a sane society. Oh, and I hate pretty much every response to this kerfluffle.

But it means a whole lot to certain people.

Tell a vet that the flag is just a fancy coloured shop rag.

Shawn

GregTivo wrote: Its a goddamn glued together piece of pine fiber stained by some ink forming squiggly's and some artwork. Once people come to realize that, we'll be slightly closer to a sane society. Oh, and I hate pretty much every response to this kerfluffle.

The way I've been told... to them, the Quran book itself is not the same as the Bible, its in their mind more along the lines of the offering that has become the actual body of Christ after consecration.

You tell someone you're going to burn that, and i think u might get a different level of offense than burning just The Word.

...not that it matters.

Trans_Maro wrote:

GregTivo wrote: Its a goddamn glued together piece of pine fiber stained by some ink forming squiggly's and some artwork. Once people come to realize that, we'll be slightly closer to a sane society. Oh, and I hate pretty much every response to this kerfluffle.

But it means a whole lot to certain people. Tell a vet that the flag is just a fancy coloured shop rag. Shawn

Is he going to shoot me and leap into the flames to save it? doubtful...so while I may be demeaning the "representation" of what the flag stands for, he realizes for all intents and purposes I'm burning a fancy colored (I'm a colonial damnit) shop rag.

madmallard wrote:

GregTivo wrote: Its a goddamn glued together piece of pine fiber stained by some ink forming squiggly's and some artwork. Once people come to realize that, we'll be slightly closer to a sane society. Oh, and I hate pretty much every response to this kerfluffle.

The way I've been told... to them, the Quran book itself is not the same as the Bible, its in their mind more along the lines of the offering that has become the actual body of Christ after consecration. You tell someone you're going to burn that, and i think u might get a different level of offense than burning just The Word. ...not that it matters.

Key words "after consecration"

The "host" (see I'm not totally ignorant) is just flat tastless wafer bread until it is consecrated. Any catholic knows that. A published Quran is just inky thin particleboard until it becomes part of a Islamic ceremony. So I still don't buy it, just because some lunatics can't even distinguish between their own traditions and reality.

Personally, I just think sacred cows are tasty steaks, but then again, I'm a misanthrope.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

GregTivo wrote: Oh, and I hate pretty much every response to this kerfluffle.

My nominee for "Word of the Day": kerfuffle

I use it when things are just too silly to be a clusterf**k

Lots of interesting discussions about atheists over the weekend.

My main issue with atheists is that they tend to like to use the Government to enforce behavior rules. Just because they don't believe doesn't mean they've overcome the basic human nature to try and control others. Add to that their often arrogant opinion of their own intelligence and you end up with trouble.

(This is a generalization... some atheists adhere to the principles of individual liberty and capitalism... but really I find more of them to be agnostics than "practicing" atheists)

In religion, if something is bad, it's a sin. To too many atheists, if something is bad, it should be illegal (or heavily regulated).

Dictators throughout history have either wanted to control the Church or displace it for this very reason.

Outside of a theoracy, I'm allowed to ignore your idea of "bad" until it becomes illegal... and that's why generally atheists are a more intrusive "religion" than the religion they so despise (most often for being intrusive).

Your average US college campus (most typically run unopposed by atheists) is a much more intolerant (of alternative opinions), fascist place than the Vatican... and that's saying something.

wcelliot wrote: Your average US college campus (most typically run unopposed by atheists) is a much more intolerant (of alternative opinions), fascist place than the Vatican... and that's saying something.

I didn't necesarily disagree with you until you made this broad swath of a statement. Care to back this up with some actual statistics?

I can assure you, many schools are very tolerant of alternative opinions. Many administrators however, are very scared of trial lawyers, which you read about in the newspapers.

Frankly, I think we all just need more drugs or more sex, one of those has got to chill us out.