Remembering 9-11 (merged anniversary thread)

[boboyer]

I would ask they go ahead and do their Quran book burning BUT one condition, to show they're true resolve they must go deep into taliban country and in front of muslim extremist, they must demonstrate what they intend to do...

I think there are a few muslims that would have 'words' with them here at home, if they did the burning in front of them.

Now wars are rarely if ever about religion. They are a struggle for power IMO. Sure they may use religion as the cause (in some cases many of the followers will be beleive thats what it is about) behind it but ultimately the leaders are after the power that comes with victory.

Opinions on that statement?

If they are fought about religion, I would like to think that it is mostly in the middle east. I mean, in North America the recruiters aren't hanging up posters around town that say "God wills it!"
Instead of a struggle for power, maybe a better word is display? I don't know.

 

[readytogo]

I think if you look back in history there have been very VERY few wars fought truly over religion....The crusades were sanctioned by the church to "spread the word" but were only a ploy to control more countries, The Roman empire at one point controlled most of the known world for thier "gods" (again just a play to control the most land and rule the world)  Neither world war was religious and so on and so on.  Religion is smoke and mirrors to distract poorly educated people in third world countries (and sometimes in southern florida) from the true intentions of a leader or another country.  This is especially true in history when the church still very much had its thumb on the pulse of the state.


my :2c:
RTG

 

[Sapplicant]

...it is almost invariably man's lust for power that causes wars... 

Bingo-bango. Until the power of love overcomes the love of power, we're all pretty much f***ed. Religion aside, this illusion of power can actually be attributed to "it". People can mistake being in positions of power for being closer to "it" without religion being involved in the least. That position of power fills one with an energy, a drive to keep going. This driving force, unfortunately, drowns out that voice inside which would guide a normal person to do the right things, things which please "it". Religion has nothing to do with "it" in cases such as these, follow?

 

[Sapplicant]

Why do Muslims get in such an uproar about a cartoon, when so many of them name themselves after Mohammed? 

I think that the "M" word (and images thereof), in this case, can be compared to the "N" word. It's THEIR prophet, not ours. We aren't allowed to draw it, or give the "M" name to a teddy bear, etc...

 

[PuckChaser]

Its an honour for them to be named after their prophet. When they refer to the actual Muhammad in literature or in speaking, normally you'll see "P.B.U.H." or Peace be upon him, as a sign of reverence.

 

[Redeye]

There's no "M" word to it.  The name itself is just a name.  It is imagery of any sort of the Prophet Mohammend that they proscribe.  Any such imagery, as they see it, is essentially idolatry.  As someone mentioned, when a Muslim refers to the Prophet Mohammed they'll usually add "Peace Be Upon Him" (or just pbuh in writing) to specify to whom they are referring.

I think that the "M" word (and images thereof), in this case, can be compared to the "N" word. It's THEIR prophet, not ours. We aren't allowed to draw it, or give the "M" name to a teddy bear, etc...

 

[Sapplicant]

There's no "M" word to it.  The name itself is just a name.  It is imagery of any sort of the Prophet Mohammend that they proscribe.  Any such imagery, as they see it, is essentially idolatry.  As someone mentioned, when a Muslim refers to the Prophet Mohammed they'll usually add "Peace Be Upon Him" (or just pbuh in writing) to specify to whom they are referring.

My bad, I forgot to add [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] to my post. I'm aware of the traditions, and they're supposed to add PBUH EVERY time they mention the name. When referring to the prophet. Also aware that the term "jihad" is VERY misused these days...

 

[Haggis]

Apparently Reverend Terry has called off his Biblical BBQ.  Shared with the usual disclaimer.

 

[jollyjacktar]

There's no "M" word to it.  The name itself is just a name.  It is imagery of any sort of the Prophet Mohammend that they proscribe.  Any such imagery, as they see it, is essentially idolatry.  As someone mentioned, when a Muslim refers to the Prophet Mohammed they'll usually add "Peace Be Upon Him" (or just pbuh in writing) to specify to whom they are referring.

I heard the head of the Islamic Society of PEI wrt this subject today.  When he mentioned JC he even pbuh him as well.

Apparently Reverand Terry has called off his Biblical BBQ.  Shared with the usual disclaimer.

Perhaps he is not as stunned as he looks and sounds.

 

[vonGarvin]

I heard the head of the Islamic Society of PEI wrt this subject today.  When he mentioned JC he even pbuh him as well.

Naturally.  Jesus Christ is, for Muslims, a prophet, just as Mohammed is. 

Apparently Reverend Terry has called off his Biblical BBQ.  Shared with the usual disclaimer.

Perhaps he is not as stunned as he looks and sounds.

Oh, yes he is.

 

[Alea]

Oh yes... he definitely seems "stunned" and more...

"US pastor cancels Qur’an-burning, then reconsiders, saying imam lied about moving NYC mosque"

GAINESVILLE, Fla. - An anti-Islamic preacher backed off and then threatened to reconsider burning the Qur’an on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, angrily accusing a Muslim leader of lying to him Thursday with a promise to move an Islamic centre and mosque away from New York's ground zero. The imam planning the centre denied there was ever such a deal.

http://www.news1130.com/news/world/article/99220--us-pastor-cancels-qur-an-burning-then-reconsiders-saying-imam-lied-about-moving-nyc-mosque

 

[Brad Sallows]

The desecration is ignorant, but the problem isn't people who want to burn books or flags or behold religious symbols in a jar or piss to make a political or artistic statement.  The problem is people who think those provocations justify a violent response.  If you fail to define a problem correctly, you can not solve it.

Undoubtedly the stunt will in some way assist Al-Qaeda recruitment, but so will the erection of a victory monument near the site of their greatest triumph (how they - not us - see these things is what matters).  If we're going to fight the propaganda war, let's not do it by half measures.

 

[hold_fast]

The desecration is ignorant, but the problem isn't people who want to burn books or flags or behold religious symbols in a jar or piss to make a political or artistic statement.  The problem is people who think those provocations justify a violent response.  If you fail to define a problem correctly, you can not solve it.

Undoubtedly the stunt will in some way assist Al-Qaeda recruitment, but so will the erection of a victory monument near the site of their greatest triumph (how they - not us - see these things is what matters).  If we're going to fight the propaganda war, let's not do it by half measures.

While I disagree with the "erection of a victory monument near the site of their greatest triumph" statement, I find it sad that it took me until the latest post to find someone who pointed out the obvious; that it is within Jones' rights to destroy his own property.

He enjoys the freedoms of a democratic Western nation. This freedom is why we are hated by extremists. Sure, the act of burning a 'sacred text' will only ignite more violence. But an extremist apt to cause violence will do so anyway.

This shouldn't have caused such a stir as it did - it has been blown out of proportion. The media should not have given Jones so much attention, but practicing Muslims should not have cared as much as they did. It would have been in everyone's best interest to shrug their shoulders and move on.

Hate Jones all you want because you consider him stupid, ignorant, or hateful. However, his actions are within the realm of the very freedoms we all enjoy, and to censor him because factions on the other side of the world will be offended by his expression of this said freedom would be wrong.

 

[Sapplicant]

While I disagree with the "erection of a victory monument near the site of their greatest triumph" statement, I find it sad that it took me until the latest post to find someone who pointed out the obvious; that it is within Jones' rights to destroy his own property.

He enjoys the freedoms of a democratic Western nation. This freedom is why we are hated by extremists. Sure, the act of burning a 'sacred text' will only ignite more violence. But an extremist apt to cause violence will do so anyway.

This shouldn't have caused such a stir as it did - it has been blown out of proportion. The media should not have given Jones so much attention, but practicing Muslims should not have cared as much as they did. It would have been in everyone's best interest to shrug their shoulders and move on.

Hate Jones all you want because you consider him stupid, ignorant, or hateful. However, his actions are within the realm of the very freedoms we all enjoy, and to censor him because factions on the other side of the world will be offended by his expression of this said freedom would be wrong.

Messages of hate are a touchy area as far as freedom goes. Sure, I can punch holes in my wall and break my TV if I so feel, it's not hurting anyone but myself. But this is a completely different kind of destruction. To do something as dumb as this only lowers us to the level of people who trample and burn burn American and Canadian flags as well as effigies, chanting something along the lines of "Death to the West". Sure, those flags and effigies are "their property". Still doesn't make drumming up messages of hate the right thing to do, does it?

If we want "them" to adopt our systems and freedoms, we have to show that our systems and freedoms are, in fact, better than the ones they already have in place. Crap like this and the WBC have no place in our society, only only prove that our "system" needs some tweaking.

 

[hold_fast]

Messages of hate are a touchy area as far as freedom goes. Sure, I can punch holes in my wall and break my TV if I so feel, it's not hurting anyone but myself. But this is a completely different kind of destruction. To do something as dumb as this only lowers us to the level of people who trample and burn burn American and Canadian flags as well as effigies, chanting something along the lines of "Death to the West". Sure, those flags and effigies are "their property". Still doesn't make drumming up messages of hate the right thing to do, does it?

If we want "them" to adopt our systems and freedoms, we have to show that our systems and freedoms are, in fact, better than the ones they already have in place. Crap like this and the WBC have no place in our society, only only prove that our "system" needs some tweaking.

I am not debating the morality of burning the Qur'an. It is also entirely legal for individuals to burn American or Canadian flags.

What is right and what is wrong? Morality is subjective, and I will not get into a debate about whether burning a 'sacred text' is right or wrong. Nor will I discuss whether Jones' actions are "drumming up messages of hate". We should not censor our freedoms to make democracy appear more attractive. The freedom of a democratic nation is how it is - you will not always like what everyone has to say or do. You have the right to voice your opinions as to the opposite. You have the right to start burning bibles in protest of Jones' burning Qur'ans.

Jones is a moron, I don't debate that fact. It does not change the fact that his freedom to burn a book remains.
I will not budge on the idea that we must protect the freedom to destroy and vandalize symbols, even if in this case that freedom is being used by an idiot who is seizing opportunities for publicity and acting in total ignorance.

If the moral majority didn't like what he had to say or planned to do, then the media shouldn't have engaged in his bottomfeeder methods of publicity.

 

[SeanNewman]

... It is also entirely legal for individuals to burn American or Canadian flags.

There are however all sorts of first-world countries who make it illegal to varying degrees, such as Denmark, France, Japan, etc.

 

[Jarnhamar]

To do something as dumb as this only lowers us to the level of people who trample and burn burn American and Canadian flags as well as effigies, chanting something along the lines of "Death to the West". Sure, those flags and effigies are "their property". Still doesn't make drumming up messages of hate the right thing to do, does it?

So a citizen burning a book, which is entirely in his legal right to do so, lowers ALL of us to the same level?

Do you think a Muslim committing a terrorist act lowers ALL Muslims to that same level?

If we want "them" to adopt our systems and freedoms, we have to show that our systems and freedoms are, in fact, better than the ones they already have in place. Crap like this and the WBC have no place in our society, only only prove that our "system" needs some tweaking.

We shouldn't care if they want to adopt our system and freedoms, it's when they try and take ours away from us when it becomes an issue.  We don't have to show anyone our system is better. We know it is, they can accept it or not.
What has no place in our society are religions that promote violence and use the threat of violence as co-hersion.  "You better not do this that or the other thing or we'll loose our shit and start killing people".

 

[PuckChaser]

Apparently Reverend Terry has called off his Biblical BBQ.  Shared with the usual disclaimer.

He got his national publicity, donations and probably boosted his book sales. Mission accomplished, why go through with it?

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Crap like this and the WBC have no place in our society

If by WBC you mean the Westboro mob, then you are pointing to a very small number of people - by using an extremely discriminating filter with respect to the ideologies for which they stand.  If we widen the arc of view to consider all the other groups who stage desecrations of symbols as part of their protests and statements and conduct themselves poorly in various ways - without respect to their politicial or religious stances - we find a number several orders of magnitude larger.  That brush is going to strike too, too many people and suppress much more freedom than it ever gives the illusion of creating.

If the point of our freedoms isn't to allow the most mean-spirited among us to go about their troubled lives in whichever ways they choose, our freedoms aren't really exceptional.

 

[SeanNewman]

I am happy to see Obama and Harper both going public to condemn him though.

I am sure there is an Info Ops campaign going on in theatre for how to mitigate it, possibly stating that we also condemn it and are just as offended.  Can't say for sure because I have been out of that chair for a year.

If nothing else, I am also happy to see that we have learned from our lessons in the past.  What we did in WW2 to Japanese Canadians was only marginally better than what the Germans did to Jewish people so we didn't have the moral high ground to claim.  No we didn't exterminate them all, but we still rounded them all up and put them in camps.

Although I do get the feeling that there is still a minority who would prefer that we do that to Muslims today, the majority of Canadians would not tolerate it.