Burning the Quran

[^_^ 5,021]

Assorted thoughts, in no particular order.

1. Isn't it normal for a country as large as this to have a lot of nutjobs? I'm not surprised some small church with a congregation of no more 50 wants to burn the Quran. What I'm surprised at is how their stature is being raised by the media. Why are we giving this tiny group of people more importance than their numbers warrant? It's almost as if we're addicted to outrage.
   
2. Remember all the hoopla over the showing of an image of their "Prophet"? We mustn't do it because it would offend them, said the media. Even Comedy Central backed down. Everyone was too scared of what "they" would do. Everyone knows "they" have an anger problem, they said. So how is this any different? Once again, someone in the West is threatening to do something our societies allow them to do but would offend them. And once again, we're being told that if we do it, "they" (the angry ones) will lose their freakin' minds and start blowin' s h i t up. I'm the first to admit that it's not nice to offend people, but wait a minute... is it suddenly ok to blow things up because your feelings were hurt? Why isn't that seen as a testament to how nutty the angry ones are?
   
3. My prediction for how this pans out: they start burning, Gainesville fire people show up and put it out and everyone goes home.
   

[DukeOfYork 28]

Assorted thoughts, in no particular order.

1. Isn't it normal for a country as large as this to have a lot of nutjobs? I'm not surprised some small church with a congregation of no more 50 wants to burn the Quran. What I'm surprised at is how their stature is being raised by the media. Why are we giving this tiny group of people more importance than their numbers warrant? It's almost as if we're addicted to outrage.
   
2. Remember all the hoopla over the showing of an image of their "Prophet"? We mustn't do it because it would offend them, said the media. Even Comedy Central backed down. Everyone was too scared of what "they" would do. Everyone knows "they" have an anger problem, they said. So how is this any different? Once again, someone in the West is threatening to do something our societies allow them to do but would offend them. And once again, we're being told that if we do it, "they" (the angry ones) will lose their freakin' minds and start blowin' s h i t up. I'm the first to admit that it's not nice to offend people, but wait a minute... is it suddenly ok to blow things up because your feelings were hurt? Why isn't that seen as a testament to how nutty the angry ones are?
   
3. My prediction for how this pans out: they start burning, Gainesville fire people show up and put it out and everyone goes home.
   

1. Agreed. There a lot of nutjobs. If the media didn't report on this and blow it all out of proportion, it wouldn't be a big deal. It likely wouldn't even get beyond the local news.

2. The act of burning the Qu'ran is insensitive and offensive. Christians would do a better job of being a witness of Jesus's love if they actually responded in love. It makes me think of Jesus's teaching about turning the other cheek. I definitely don't think this shows they're [the church] willing to do so.

3. I really wish someone out there, either a politician, a Muslim, a Christian or a combination thereof would point out the differences between your normal, every day Muslims and the extremists. As a Christian, Fred Phelps doesn't represent me just like Osama Bin Laden doesn't represent all Muslims.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I doubt it will come to much more than the usual sabre rattling. It's an example of how the US media likes to create the news and not report it.

[^_^ 5,021]

The act of burning the Qu'ran is insensitive and offensive.

Sure it is, but the Church has a constitutional right to do so as long as they obtain the proper permits. What does it say about "the angry ones" that they routinely flip out and kill Americans every time an American exercises his or her freedom? Is it too much to ask that they chill the hell out and realize most of the world doesn't share their faith?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

1. Anything and everything offends Muslims.

2. Radical Muslims will continue to kill Muslims and non-Muslims, whether the Quran is burned or not.

3. It's in bad taste (but not illegal) to burn the Quran.

4. It's in bad taste (but not illegal) to build the Mosque so close to GZ.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

1. Anything and everything offends Muslims.

2. Radical Muslims will continue to kill Muslims and non-Muslims, whether the Quran is burned or not.

3. It's in bad taste (but not illegal) to burn the Quran.

4. It's in bad taste (but not illegal) to build the Mosque so close to GZ.

:thumbs: All on the nail!

[^_^ 5,021]

Mayor Bloomberg put it well:

"In a strange way, I'm here to defend his right to do that. I happen to think that it is distasteful. I don't think he would like it if somebody burnt a book that in his religion he thinks is holy," Bloomberg said Tuesday at a news conference about the status of the World Trade Center site, according to The Wall Street Journal.

"But the First Amendment protects everybody," Bloomberg continued. "And you can't say that we're going to apply the First Amendment to only those cases where we are in agreement."

[Jenn! 918]

1. Anything and everything offends Muslims.

Why do you think that?

I think most Muslims could probably not care less. The media in Muslim countries does as good a job as ours does at manipulating the public into frenzied outrage.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Assorted thoughts, in no particular order.

1. Isn't it normal for a country as large as this to have a lot of nutjobs? I'm not surprised some small church with a congregation of no more 50 wants to burn the Quran. What I'm surprised at is how their stature is being raised by the media. Why are we giving this tiny group of people more importance than their numbers warrant? It's almost as if we're addicted to outrage.
   
2. Remember all the hoopla over the showing of an image of their "Prophet"? We mustn't do it because it would offend them, said the media. Even Comedy Central backed down. Everyone was too scared of what "they" would do. Everyone knows "they" have an anger problem, they said. So how is this any different? Once again, someone in the West is threatening to do something our societies allow them to do but would offend them. And once again, we're being told that if we do it, "they" (the angry ones) will lose their freakin' minds and start blowin' s h i t up. I'm the first to admit that it's not nice to offend people, but wait a minute... is it suddenly ok to blow things up because your feelings were hurt? Why isn't that seen as a testament to how nutty the angry ones are?
   
3. My prediction for how this pans out: they start burning, Gainesville fire people show up and put it out and everyone goes home.
   

1. Yes of course.

1a. The reason is cable TV and internet and 24 hour news stations competeing. Gotta talk about something. Look, whenever you have an expansion in a professional sport, the entire sport suffers because you, by definition, allow people to play that were previously not good enough. Add a news station or news outlet and the same thing happens. You lower the quality of the news that makes it to the screen. People go nuts over some issue, the "overnight" ratings go up and we are off to the races! In the past, the news at broadcast stations was a loser, money speaking, and took only 2 hours per day, maximum. Now we have several "news only" 24 hour stations competeing. Clearly you have to lower the bar on what makes the cut.

2. This is different because in the meantime "they" are insisting on an Islamic Center near ground zero in New York. ####### for tat. When a nut from one side gets publicity he doesn't deserve, then a nut from the other side will. Good for ratings.

3. Sort of. They will burn the books because...why not? Publicity. Even bad publicity is publicity. Either way the Christian wacko gets more money, the news stations get more money and no one really cares if Muslims are offended. Same as the Muslim nut in New York.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

1. Anything and everything offends Muslims.

2. Radical Muslims will continue to kill Muslims and non-Muslims, whether the Quran is burned or not.

3. It's in bad taste (but not illegal) to burn the Quran.

4. It's in bad taste (but not illegal) to build the Mosque so close to GZ.

5. And you're totally not prejudiced against and obsessed with Muslims are you.

[^_^ 5,021]

1. Yes of course.

1a. The reason is cable TV and internet and 24 hour news stations competeing. Gotta talk about something. Look, whenever you have an expansion in a professional sport, the entire sport suffers because you, by definition, allow people to play that were previously not good enough. Add a news station or news outlet and the same thing happens. You lower the quality of the news that makes it to the screen. People go nuts over some issue, the "overnight" ratings go up and we are off to the races! In the past, the news at broadcast stations was a loser, money speaking, and took only 2 hours per day, maximum. Now we have several "news only" 24 hour stations competeing. Clearly you have to lower the bar on what makes the cut.

2. This is different because in the meantime "they" are insisting on an Islamic Center near ground zero in New York. ####### for tat. When a nut from one side gets publicity he doesn't deserve, then a nut from the other side will. Good for ratings.

3. Sort of. They will burn the books because...why not? Publicity. Even bad publicity is publicity. Either way the Christian wacko gets more money, the news stations get more money and no one really cares if Muslims are offended. Same as the Muslim nut in New York.

I read your response and my take-away is this - in America, we like our nuts.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The media likes them at least. Sensationalist garbage.

[^_^ 5,021]

The media likes them at least. Sensationalist garbage.

Is it your feeling that the media gives us what they like, and not what we like?

And by 'we' I mean the general viewing population, not you or I or Mr. Galt.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Is it your feeling that the media gives us what they like, and not what we like?

And by 'we' I mean the general viewing population, not you or I or Mr. Galt.

It's a symbiotic relationship that works both ways. Clearly someone cares that Wayne Rooney is shagging prostitutes, even if I don't. It seems to shift a lot of papers.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I read your response and my take-away is this - in America, we like our nuts.

well, sort of. I couldn't care less, I don't have a TV and I am completely unreligious. I am so unreligious I am not even an athiest, it would require way to much thought about religion. I wouldn't even know about either thing if it were not for the internet, that did not exist a few years ago and also competes for readers.

I am not sure we "love our nuts" but programmers love the money generated by watching nuts. In what other country does Jerry Springer get a TV program? This is just "Jerry Springer" brought to you by CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc. It is like a side show at the circus, everyone says it is disgusting, but then ponies up $1 to watch.

I what world would the US Secretary of State comment on some unknown church in Gainesville, FL burning some books? Are you kidding me? The PRESIDENT of the USA is commenting on some unknown church burning books???????? Were Thomas Jefferson the President the news to him would be..."Three months ago, some church in Florida burned some Muslim books" His response? "Florida? Where is that?" None of this is in any way important. Were it not for the media, which Muslim could even possibly KNOW about this nut burning books?

Everyone in this will be money ahead. The nut in Florida is getting 500% or more in donations than he did last month. The Islamic center is getting donations (they actually never had the money to do what they talked about, the more we protest, the more we PAY for it) The news outlets are getting money.

Bloomberg is right, the first amendment cuts both ways, thank you for that.