US church - Quran burning

[Dave McReynolds]

Then why are we trying so hard to change other cultures? I'm thinking of, for example:

 

 

•stoning to death (using only modest-sized, not-instantly-fatal stones) of adulterers and homosexuals

•honor killings

•subjugation of women (can't drive, can't venture outside on your own)

•suppression of basic freedoms taken for granted in the U.S.

if I understand you correctly, then you are saying that a culture which condemns and fights these practices is not superior to one which embraces these practices.

 

If so, I disagree.

 

The radical Muslims would totally agree with your last thought, except turned in reverse. They would list their own grievances with our society, our obsession with what they would define as pornography, and which they consider as much more serious than just a nasty little social habit, our steadfast support of a regime that kills a lot of their people, etc. etc. I'm not saying I agree with or even understand their point of view; what I'm saying is that they believe in their point of view at least as strongly, if not much more so, as you believe in yours.

 

They believe they are as justified in stoning people who violate certain of their laws as we believe (or at least have believed in the recent past) that we were justified in locking a person up for ten years for illegal drug use. And I'm sure they could compare and contrast every aspect of their society or laws which we might find repugnant with aspects of our own society or laws that they find equally repugnant.

 

The point is, they aren't us, not by a long shot, and while we don't have to agree with them or like them or trade with them, it is Quixotic in the extreme to condemn or fight their practices based on our own moral rules. Just like we accepted the tens of millions killed for political reasons in Russia and China and would have accepted the Holocaust in Germany had not Hitler gotten too big for his britches, we will probably have to accept that Iran can stone a woman for adultery if that happens to be their law and it reflects the will of their people, or at least the will of those of their people who hold the power.

[notacop]

Looks like almost everybody misses out on the whole thing. All these premises written by men to allude they were led by some super being to preserve these entries. Koran, Bible, Book Of Mormon, Egyptian Book of the Dead.

Like Jack Nicholson spoke it in 5 easy pieces...your full of sh-t, you're all full of sh-t.

 

[CoarsegoldKid]

Frankly I think burning any book is wrong. I usually give them away. As for the Quran specifically being burned it only serves to inflame another person religion. Yeah they have the right but this church also knows it will intentionally inflame. If they really wanted to show respect for the victims of 9/11 they could certainly come up with an equally successful publicity event no one would call a stunt that would get great coverage. Bringing forth Muslim leaders to their church to condemn the worldwide violence of extremists and pray for the victims and their families would serve a better purpose.

[philbytx]

Read again Mitch.

 

I never said that........you misunderstood

 

I could have got all biblical on y'all and added:

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

Then you get into the whole "what is sin" thing and so it goes....

 

 

 

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Read again Mitch.

 

I never said that........you misunderstood

 

Your original quote is here:

 

Any culture that believes that they are politically, culturally and/or morally superior to another is merely deluding themselves and will, eventually, be doomed to failure.

 

To say that believing one's culture to be superior to another is deluding oneself is to say that no culture is superior to another.

 

That's what I read, but...apparently you meant something else?

 

Are we not even superior to our own culture of 200 years ago, when we endorsed slavery and eschewed women's rights?

 

Are we not supposed to try to fight what we perceive to be injustice?

 

What about when an honor killing takes place inside the United States? Do we just dismiss it as part of another culture, or do we say "that ain't right" and go out of our way to do justice upon the perps?

[philbytx]

Ok. So you obviously view "your" culture (at this time) as superior? History shows that we have lost certain values and virtues and gained others, maybe not so valued or virtuous! We have also gained and lost some "rights" in the process. However, in total, the "U.S. culture" is certainly no paragon of virtue at present, is it? But, then again, what culture is??

 

And you used the word "perceive" regarding justice. Well, perception is in the eye of the beholder and perception is not always truth.

 

Believing ones culture superior to another is merely hubris. What you believe has no bearing on what the "inferior" culture believes. Their belief system(s) may be 180 from yours. Most cultures venerate old folks and view them as resources, here we celebrate (and sell!) youth. So, we can view our own culture as being superior to others but it may be anathema or unacceptable to them.

 

 

[upflying]

I feel sorry for the Gainesville police. They will have their hands full with the protests on Saturday. No doubt some violence mongers will play it up in front of the cameras.

[Bob Palin]

It's just a frickin' book for crikesake

And what would you say if I said the US flag is just a piece of cloth with some patterns on it?

[Mike]

Believing ones culture superior to another is merely hubris.

 

I can't accept that. Was it hubris to decry Nazi genocide? Would you dismiss our condemnation of human trafficking as hubris? Was Idi Amin an okay guy . . . just different?

 

The whole idea that every society is inherently equal in whatever form you find it, even if it embraces tremendous cruelty imposed by despots, just makes no sense. To make that judgment is not the equivalent of saying that we (or any society) are in all ways perfect.

[Dave McReynolds]

Believing ones culture superior to another is merely hubris.

 

I can't accept that. Was it hubris to decry Nazi genocide? Would you dismiss our condemnation of human trafficking as hubris? Was Idi Amin an okay guy . . . just different?

 

The whole idea that every society is inherently equal in whatever form you find it, even if it embraces tremendous cruelty imposed by despots, just makes no sense. To make that judgment is not the equivalent of saying that we (or any society) are in all ways perfect.

 

It's fine to make value judgements on what other people do. We wouldn't be human if we didn't do that. We need to make a distinction between making value judgements, and imposing those value judgements on other people We didn't do that in Uganda, China, Russia, or Rwanda. We wouldn't have done that in Germany, had not Hitler violated the agreement he made with Chamberlain in 1938. Even when attacked, while we certainly have the right to defend ourselves, which may include destroying our enemies, it is a losing proposition to try to impose our values on others.

 

Which is not to say that we have to associate with or trade with those whose values we find repugnant, or that we shouldn't speak out globally against practices we find repugnant.

[Mike]

You're right, Dave. There's often a huge disconnect between making value judgments--which may be entirely valid--and our actual response to what we deem reprehensible. Inevitably a significant determinant of our actions is practicality and expediency. Of course, those factors and others sometimes lead us to make morally suspect decisions, despite our claim to a higher moral ground.

 

I fully recognize that this is the way of the world, and that neither we, nor the Canadians, nor the Dutch, nor anyone else whom we might view as having an enlightened society ever achieves moral perfection. Of course, we are constantly reminded of that.

[philbytx]

Mike,

 

Dave answered your question admirably !

 

I really can't think of anyone that owns real estate on

the "moral high ground" these days .

[BarrieSalvanda]

Hi Phil,

The Qoran is only the Qoran if it is in Arabic !.In all other languages it is just a book.So unless he burns the Qoran in arabic NA DA.

O yeah the holes in the ground are in Christchurch,no pun ! = the earthquake here.

 

[Ken H.]

It's just a frickin' book for crikesake, a bunch of paper with words printed on it.

And of course there in lies the core vast chasm of misunderstanding. It’s NOT just a, “frickin’ book” in the eyes of Muslims. And as long as we persist in believing that it is, we will be fought, in one way or another, sometimes peacefully, sometimes not, to convince us otherwise. Even if it takes 10,000 years to convince us, that is but a momoment in time well spent.

 

I can think of a parallel that might make the point: In Catholicism, once the Eucharist (circle/piece of bread) is blessed by the Priest, Catholics believe that bread becomes The Body of Christ. Not a symbol for it, not a representation of it, it is the actual Body of Christ. The actual body of the man called Jesus, one in the same as God, in your mouth. That belief is absolutely core to Catholicism, but yet to some it seems like so much nonsense.

 

The Qur’an is not a book, a bunch of paper with words printed on it, a teaching tool of Islamic beliefs, etc, it is the actual Word of God. Actual words of God speaking in your hand. Nothing less. That belief is absolutely core to Islam, but yet to some it seems like so much nonsense.

 

Not understanding the importance of either of those to their respective believers is why we fail.

 

[Ken H.]

I don't think Phil use the word perfect, he said (a belief that one is) superior.

[philbytx]

Thank you Ken....I believe I said belief .

 

My brain now hurts !

[Ken H.]

To say that believing one's culture to be superior to another is deluding oneself is to say that no culture is superior to another.

Superiority, especially moral superiority is anchored by point of perspective. Every culture feels theirs is politically, culturally, social/economic, and morally superior. Indeed that belief is the very foundation of, indeed the very definition of the word, “‘patriotism.” And for each of us, what our point of perspective is was largely determined by the coincidence of where we were born on the planet, nothing more.

 

When it comes to moral superiority in particular, when each grouping of human believes their particular point of view is the absolute final word as to the correct one, as told to them by God, then well, that’s what 1000s of years of war are made of. Be those wars of the sword, wars of words, or wars of persuasion (e.g. missionaries). All are wars of, ‘I’m right, you’re wrong’ never the less. Each has a list of what’s right with ‘mine’ and what’s wrong with ‘yours.’ And none of those lists are correct and none are incorrect.

 

The very fact that there are multiple religions on the earth, with dramatically different views of what should or shouldn’t be, all 101% certain that theirs was dictated by God; in and of itself proves (IMHO) that there is no dictate from a singular god. How could there be? How could a god, God, tell different groups of humans the absolute model of what is perfect and them all be so different? (But then I guess that’s a different thread.)

 

To Killer’s point I believe, the problem is not in whether there is or isn’t a single God, the problem is in man’s believe (s)he knows what that God thinks. As manifested by religions. But never-the-less religions and a belief by each ones followers that they have the ‘inside track’ always has and always will, I suppose, exist. Until mankind as a whole reconciles with that fact, ideology wars of what's right and what's wrong will continue to rage.

 

 

[philbytx]

God help us !!!!!!!!!

[Ken H.]

Looks like almost everybody misses out on the whole thing. All these premises written by men to allude they were led by some super being to preserve these entries. Koran, Bible, Book Of Mormon, Egyptian Book of the Dead.

Actually that's my point in the above post exactly. This human egomania that some how a certain one of us (and each religion’s one just happens to be a different person) had the knowledge of God to tell the rest of us.

[Ken H.]

God help us !!!!!!!!!

Remember the one hit wonder Zager and Evans song “In The Year 2525?” One of the verses goes, “In the year 8510, God is going to shake his mighty head, he’ll either say I’m pleased where man has been, or tear it down and start again.” I think that pretty well sums it up. And in the big picture 8510 isn’t very far from now!

[Mike]

Thank you Ken....I believe I said belief .

 

My brain now hurts !

 

Ditto.

[Ken H.]

One of my favorite sayings is, “Never underestimate the human mind’s ability to justify its own actions.”

And you just proved your point in your own posts.

 

Your prescience is admirable.

Gee thanks for the insult. And here I thought personal attacks where prohibited at BMWST.com

[Matts_12GS]

One of my favorite sayings is, “Never underestimate the human mind’s ability to justify its own actions.”

And you just proved your point in your own posts.

 

Your prescience is admirable.

Gee thanks for the insult. And here I thought personal attacks where prohibited at BMWST.com

 

A backhanded compliment, not an insult Ken. You went round and round to prove something that seems to be largely your beliefs.

 

Merely an attempt at some levity.

Oooommmmm...

[Selden]

It's just a frickin' book for crikesake, a bunch of paper with words printed on it.

A lot of people, not just Muslims, place tremendous value on "a bunch of paper with words printed on it." One of the richest sources of primary documents for eastern Mediterranean history was the genizah (storeroom) of the Ben Ezra Synagogue in Fustat (today a neighborhood in Cairo), in which more than 250,000 documents had been dumped over a period of roughly 1000 years. Many of these documents had no overtly religious content; ledgers, letters, contracts, etc.

 

The Cairo Genizah was not an archive; it was a temporary storage area until the documents in it could be buried in a cemetery. Most of these documents were written in Hebrew and Aremaic using the Hebrew alphabet, while others others were in Arabic or even medieval German-Yiddish, written with the Arabic script. As Hebrew was considered the language of God by the Jews, and the Hebrew script to be the literal writing of God, the texts could not be destroyed even long after they had served their purpose.

 

I suspect there are Christians with similar feelings about the sanctity of the bunch of paper with words printed that constitute the Bible. While I don't share these beliefs, I see no value in deliberately insulting any group by burning texts that are considered sacred.

 

This might be a good time for everybody to read or re-read Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. All literature is part of our cultural heritage as human beings. It's one of the artifacts that truly separate us from all the other animals on the planet.

 

 

[Fubar]

Well, as of the 9/8 5:30 pm Tampa news, several details have come to the fore.

1. The pastor Terry Jones is still planning to burn a big ol' stack of Qurans.

2. The Gainesville PD is planning for quite a turnout and is well-prepared.

3. It is ILLEGAL to have outdoor fires within the city limits and the G.P.D. has said they will have the Gainesville Fire Dept. on hand just in case they do light that fire. They hinted that more could be forthcoming, presumably arrests.

4. The story has actually made it to the BBC's broadcast.

Stay tuned, boys and girls. This is going to get ugly(ier) then, I suspect, quite funny. Or not.

 

At times like this, I am amazed that only 10% of the population are atheist/agnostic.

[Ken H.]

As much as I generally dislike Stephen Harper (Prime Minister of Canada), I think he said it well yesterday:

 

"I don't speak very often about my own religion but let me be very clear: My God and my Christ is a tolerant God, and that's what we want to see in this world,” said Harper. “I unequivocally condemn it. [The planned burning of Qur’ans.] "We all enjoy freedom of religion and that freedom of religion comes from a tolerant spirit. I don't think that's the way you treat other faiths, as different as those faiths may be from your own."

 

[philbytx]

Ken,

Was he speaking just for Canada or the World?

 

Firstly, nice that he said that HIS God and HIS Christ were tolerant!

 

But then, given the "we all enjoy freedom of religion" part, if he was speaking for the World, that makes it really quite an inane statement!

[beemerman2k]

One major problem that I think is way under-addressed with respect to these Christian/Muslim conflicts is this: there are so many different sects under the umbrella of each of these religions that we really show our ignorance and prejudices when we paint the entire groups as one.

 

Imagine if you were to visit a Muslim nation and people decided to persecute you because of what this "Christian" minister in Gainesville, FL did. From your point of view, you had nothing to do with this crazy minister. Furthermore, just because you're an American doesn't even mean your a Christian! Yet from the point of view of those Muslims, you are the exact personification of that Florida preacher and all that he represents. Nice, eh?

 

Frankly, I do not see Islam as a religion or Muslims as having any more to do with 9/11 than you as an American and maybe even a Christian having anything to do with the burning of the Qur’an.

[Ken H.]

Ken,

Was he speaking just for Canada or the World?

 

Firstly, nice that he said that HIS God and HIS Christ were tolerant!

 

But then, given the "we all enjoy freedom of religion" part, if he was speaking for the World, that makes it really quite an inane statement!

Actually I think he was just speaking for himself. His own personal opinion. My (and most I think) interpretation of his, "...we all enjoy freedom if religion..." statement to be in the context of, '...we all [in the USA and Canada] enjoy freedom of religion...' I don't think even Harper would be naive enough to think or say the world as a whole has freedom of religion. At least not in the traditional definition of; freedom to openly practice and display the rituals of one's religion.

 

I think an argument can be made that actually everyone on the planet has freedom of religion in the context of; no person has the power to keep me from believing what I believe in. But that’s probably not where Harper's head was when he said it.

[Ken H.]

One major problem that I think is way under-addressed with respect to these Christian/Muslim conflicts is this: there are so many different sects under the umbrella of each of these religions that we really show our ignorance and prejudices when we paint the entire groups as one.

 

Imagine if you were to visit a Muslim nation and people decided to persecute you because of what this "Christian" minister in Gainesville, FL did. From your point of view, you had nothing to do with this crazy minister. Furthermore, just because you're an American doesn't even mean your a Christian! Yet from the point of view of those Muslims, you are the exact personification of that Florida preacher and all that he represents. Nice, eh?

 

Frankly, I do not see Islam as a religion or Muslims as having any more to do with 9/11 than you as an American and maybe even a Christian having anything to do with the burning of the Qur’an.

 

Oh I think that’s absolutely true, on both sides of the issue. There is clearly a trend, often intentionally IMHO as a way to advance one’s personal agenda/position; to paint with a broad brush. It’s just plain old-fashion stereotyping. It’s just so much more dangerous in today’s instant-media environment, coupled with the widening polarization of society.

 

Someone is famously quoted for saying, “Not all Muslims are terrorist, but all terrorist are Muslim.” Purportedly as a statement of tolerance and understanding in the first part of the statement, but accidentally (or maybe cleverly) effectively communicating just the opposite - intolerance and misunderstanding by means of the last part of the statement. (To say nothing of the fact that it’s just plain not true.)

 

And it’s not just sects within religions, it’s the fact that the actions we abhor are often, if not always, carried out by the very, very extremist, and by a very, very small percentage of the people who belive in the religion. Which often (IMHO) grossly misunderstand the actual tenants of the religion.

 

Misunderstanding of the tenants of most religions abound. (Probably because by their very nature they are vague.) Both internally by some of their practitioners (e.g. radical extremist), and externally by those observing the actions of some of the religion's practitioners and stereotyping all the practitioners of the religion as being the same.

 

We would never (I think!) be so silly as to say, “All unmarried Christians are virgins”, but yet in many ways it’s about the same level of credibility, sensibility, or accuracy.

 

[Gregori]

A   study after Gulf War I that found that the more time people spent watching war coverage on TV, the less they understood about the situation. (...snip...)

Which is the chicken, which is the egg?

 

It seems self-evident (IMHO) that those who choose to watch a lot of TV tend to know less about EVERYTHING.  (Regardless of broadcast content.)

 

If you were able to take two essentially identical groups, and expose one to more TV coverage of specific events than the other, it's possible that they might become more informed. But given that so much of the 'news' content is mostly meaningless opinion and conjecture, I would expect them to be equally informed as the control group. (Though they might THINK themselves more knowledgeable.)

 

FWIW - I recall reading about studies in which TV viewers have brain activity levels lower than when asleep. (While viewing, of course.) 

A quick Google search found this LINK which discusses TV exposure linked to lower Beta wave activity, higher Alpha. (Less actual thinking, and more trance-like.)

[philbytx]

Oh! I am enjoying this thread a lot....and thank all y'all participants for your thoughts and wisdom

 

quote

we all [in the USA and Canada] enjoy freedom of religion.

unquote

 

Ken, is that freedom to "practice" ones religion or freedom to believe in X ?

 

Because there is a distinct difference.......and we would certainly see a huge difference if Sharia law PRACTICE was accepted into the fabric of this country. If it WAS allowed, then Mormon's plural marriage should be allowed, snake handling sects not criminalized etc. etc...

 

The more you examine the situation, the more it could turn into one extremely large jar of holy worms....!

[DavidEBSmith]

Ken, is that freedom to "practice" ones religion or freedom to believe in X ?

 

Because there is a distinct difference.......and we would certainly see a huge difference if Sharia law PRACTICE was accepted into the fabric of this country. If it WAS allowed, then Mormon's plural marriage should be allowed, snake handling sects not criminalized etc. etc...

 

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith

 

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

 

[Ken H.]

Ken, is that freedom to "practice" ones religion or freedom to believe in X ?

 

Because there is a distinct difference.......and we would certainly see a huge difference if Sharia law PRACTICE was accepted into the fabric of this country. If it WAS allowed, then Mormon's plural marriage should be allowed, snake handling sects not criminalized etc. etc...

 

The more you examine the situation, the more it could turn into one extremely large jar of holy worms....!

Holy Can of Worms is the right way to put it! We could go here and there on various aspects of this for about forever. And we probably are deviating off the original subject of the thread - the specific plans in Gainesville. (And I probably need to get some actual work done today too!)

 

I kind of liken this - how to define ‘practicing one’s religion’ distinction to the whole prayers in schools issue. For/against it. Banning/supporting it, it doesn’t matter. People seem to be unable to grasp the distinction between doing the outwardly visible rituals of a religion (crossing one’s self, postulating a certain direction, saying certain words out loud, whatever) vs. believing in and participating in the religion. While a school board, government, tyranny, can attempt to physically restrain me from engaging in the outwardly visible rituals of my religion (stop the six year old from standing next to his desk, hands together, head down, saying a prayer, or conversely requiring him/her to do so), they are totally utterly without power to know or control what, or to whom (e.g. a deity) (s)he is thinking to while sitting at their desk pretending to be listening to the math lesson. Is ‘practicing’ the ritual or the belief? IMHO it’s the latter.

 

And if God is really the omnipotent deity most religions believe him (her? it?) to be, would (s)he really be so superficial as to care? To put more value in the specifics of a movement of the body (e.g. kneeling, saying, etc) than in what the person believes in his/her mind/heart? Wouldn’t that be rather selling God short? Isn’t that just putting human limitations on/around God’s ability to understand? That ‘communications’ to God can only be successful via rituals defined by man (albeit usually a man inspired by God, (e.g. a prophet)) seems immensely short-sighted, naive, silly, and to some extent; human-egomaniac to me.

 

Now when you ratchet up the stakes a bit, just for the sake of discussion let’s take it to an extreme – a religion that believes in and practices human sacrifice, then well, I don’t know... I still think it is possible for that religion’s god, God, to be quite fine with, quite happy, pleased, with knowing his people believe in human sacrifice as being wholly and completely correct, even though society prevents them from actually sacrificing humans. They are still ‘practicing’ in the most important way – believing in their minds and hearts that the tenant of their religion is what God wants.

 

Does that make any sense at all, or am I just psycho-babbling in circles!?!

 

[1springer]

Just curious, the media is reporting world wide protests, flag burnings, etc.. The U.S. military and the administration and others have denounced the burning. But, and I may have missed it, there seems to be little reported about the reaction of the Muslims in America.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

And it's not just sects within religions, it's the fact that the actions we abhor are often, if not always, carried out by the very, very extremist, and by a very, very small percentage of the people who belive in the religion.

 

Public opinion surveys of muslims around the world in the aftermath of 9/11 showed widespread support for the attacks of that day, and for (in general) suicide-attacks against civilians. There was also widespread condemnation (among muslims), but my point is that support came from much more than just a very, very small percentage of muslims.

 

...Which often (IMHO) grossly misunderstand the actual tenants of the religion.

 

What if the extremists are the only ones who've got it right? What if that's what Islam really is?

 

The history of Islam is a collection of cycles of doctrinal decay followed by fundamentalist renewal. Believers tend to drift away from strict Islam, but ever century or two some mad-eyed wanderer will come screaming out of the desert and haul the faithful back on to the Narrow Way...

...

This drama keeps getting re-enacted because, in general, these charismatic fundamentalist looney-toons are correct in their criticism of `soft’ Islam. The Koran, the actions and statements of the prophet Mohammed, and the witness of the lives of his immediate followers are pretty clear on what the religious duties of a Muslim are.

 

Moderate Muslims trying to argue against the latest version of Islamic fundamentalism are in a difficult situation. All the fundamentalists have to do to support their position is to point at the Koran, which is much more authoritative in an Islamic context than the Bible is in most Christian ones. Moderates are reduced to arguing that the Koran doesn’t really mean what it says, or arguing from hadith that qualify or contradict the Koranic text. Since the Koran trumps the hadith, this is generally a losing position.

 

The grim truth is that Osama bin Laden’s fanatic interpretation of Islam is Koranically correct. The God of the Koran and Mohammed truly does demand that idolatry be purged with fire and sword, and that infidels must be forced either to convert to Islam or (as a limited exception for Christians and Jews, the “Peoples of the Book”) live as second-class citizens subject to special taxes and legal restrictions. The Koran really does endorse suicidal martyrdom and the indiscriminate killing of infidels for the faith.

 

At this point I will confess to not having read the Koran (or much of the Bible). That's why I prefaced that quote with a question, and why I'm following it up with another: is he right? Or are the exremists reading the Koran wrong?

[Ken H.]

 

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith

 

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

Yes, and those are good examples (and I followed the case over the use of peyote closely, I thought it might go the other way given the Native American aspects of it) of ritual vs. belief/faith.

 

But certainly throughout the ages worship of gods has had required rituals. It would be interesting to hypothesis why that is. I personally think it’s because we (humans) basically lack the ability to comprehend, understand, or even ponder much that’s beyond our own frame of reference. “God”, for the most part, is just a bigger, more powerful, forever version of us. (Or the other way around, but the perspective remains.) When personally I suspect, if there is a singular god, whatever it is, it is so much not like humans, that there is no human way/words/concepts to communicate it amongst us humans.

 

But I do think there would be value in expanding our thinking. Just think of the impact it would have on all of humanity if somehow we could move the idea of what God is beyond the various differences that currently exist. Move to a totally differently plain of understanding that transcends the current differences. It’s actually one of the things I like about The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It attempts to try to get us to reconsider on an abstract level what God might actually be. E.g. not a ‘maxi-human’ at all, but possibly something entirely different. In that religion’s case – a plate of really, really great spaghetti.

 

[Pilgrim]

The problem is this, as I see it.

 

It's not Islam and it's not their holy book. There's a lot of violence in the Qur'an, but there's just as much violence in the Bible that supposedly this pastor follows.

 

While it's legal to do this, I don't see it as anything but inflammatory and nonsensical. What does it accomplish but give media attention to the nut job here and the nut jobs there?

 

+1!

 

Our fight is with radical Islam, not the Qur'an.

[philbytx]

Thanks Eebie

I was waiting with bated breath, for one of our legal beagles to post something on this.... !

 

"this does not prevent the government from passing neutral laws that incidentally impact certain religious practices".

 

Wonderful! No hand-chopping, bigamy or beheadings allowed....

 

[philbytx]

Spaghetti? That's just a step higher than a wafer and a sip of wine !!

 

Darn, I would rather HE be a large plate of BBQ Brisket !

[Matts_12GS]

Pastafarians unite!

[Knifemaker]

At this point I will confess to not having read the Koran (or much of the Bible). That's why I prefaced that quote with a question, and why I'm following it up with another: is he right? Or are the exremists reading the Koran wrong?

 

That's the fundamental problem....It does not matter who is right or wrong...All that matters is who will "WIN"

 

The nature of the human being is to 'Win" no matter if the question is political,social,religious,or any other type of cause...we want to win...

 

The problem with the enlightened countries like the U.S. is that because majority rules has been replaced by being P.C. We have lost focus on winning so we can be P.C.

 

Others such as the followers of Islam have not lost focus and now understand how to use our P.C. against us.

 

Our "RIGHTS" as American citizens were not "given" to us but they were voted on by a majority not concerned with being P.C.

 

I for one may or may not like what this Rev. Jones is doing but as a CITIZEN of this country I back his voted on "RIGHT" to do it...P.C. or not....

[philbytx]

Now THAT is funny Matt

[philbytx]

I often wonder why most people feel need to gather in a building to celebrate their God with others.

 

I just walk outside and there is my 'church'; our planet, our solar system and beyond.

 

I am because He is....or not, as the case may be !

 

 

[Pilgrim]

 

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith

 

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

Yes, and those are good examples (and I followed the case over the use of peyote closely, I thought it might go the other way given the Native American aspects of it) of ritual vs. belief/faith.

 

But certainly throughout the ages worship of gods has had required rituals. It would be interesting to hypothesis why that is. I personally think it’s because we (humans) basically lack the ability to comprehend, understand, or even ponder much that’s beyond our own frame of reference. “God”, for the most part, is just a bigger, more powerful, forever version of us. (Or the other way around, but the perspective remains.) When personally I suspect, if there is a singular god, whatever it is, it is so much not like humans, that there is no human way/words/concepts to communicate it amongst us humans.

 

But I do think there would be value in expanding our thinking. Just think of the impact it would have on all of humanity if somehow we could move the idea of what God is beyond the various differences that currently exist. Move to a totally differently plain of understanding that transcends the current differences. It’s actually one of the things I like about The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It attempts to try to get us to reconsider on an abstract level what God might actually be. E.g. not a ‘maxi-human’ at all, but possibly something entirely different. In that religion’s case – a plate of really, really great spaghetti.

 

Man trying to understand God is on the same level as an ant trying to understand a nuclear reactor - we not only don't know the answers, we don't even know what the questions are or how to phrase them.

 

Each faith has developed its own set of beliefs (and rituals to manifest them) that explain to the followers God-things in a way that their minds can grasp. And all require Faith in something beyond oneself.

 

Craziness of one sort or another arises when someone believes he has a good grasp of the "truth," ("truth"being opinion solidified by pressure over time) and brings others around to his point of view, then persuades them that his version is worth dying for.

 

And God sits up there laughing or crying over us, as the case calls for.

 

Pilgrim

 

 

 

 

[David]

I like that: truth = opinion solidified by pressure.

[Matts_12GS]

I like that: truth = opinion solidified by pressure.

 

reminds me of what a motivational speaker friend who used to say. He would teach fire eating as a confidence builder using rubbing alchohol and a small puff of cotton.

 

people would be all bravado until the end despite his instructions. Invariably the volunteer would go right to the point of inserting the flaming ball into their mouth and back away

 

Joe's favorite response after the subject finally got the fire in and their mouth closed to extinguish the flame was "It's like sales, they get hot if you don't close'm quickly!

 

/hijack

[KLC]

I am glad i live in a society that actually allows other religous books to be viewed, sold etc , try taking a bible or any Christian artifact into Saudi Arabia and see how tolerant they are.

[SeanC]

[While I don't share these beliefs, I see no value in deliberately insulting any group by burning texts that are considered sacred.

I see no value in it either. That said, I still think it's just a frickin' book, and anyone who attaches that much value to a man-made object composed largely of tree detritus that came off a mass-production printer is totally insane.

 

You can buy a Koran published by Penguin Classics for $8 bucks new.... or one from Mass Market Paperback for $9.95. Did Allah, or perhaps his "do not caricature under penalty of death" messenger Mohammed, grant a license to these printers? Or provide some special dispensation allowing their printing machines to magically churn out sacred books? It's not like Pastor Pinhead is burning the only copy of the Koran or some one-of-a-kind orginal text from the library of Al Whozafat!

 

So why do we fear this sort of inane bullshit, or go out of our way to be sensitive to people who come up with these nutty ideas? I mean, if I decided to burn a copy of the Principia Mathematica, and English atheists and followers of Bertrand Russell declared that Americans will be killed around the world as a result of my action, wouldn't you think they were nuckin' futz? And if our President and top generals issued public appeals to urge me to change my mind, wouldn't you be sort of embarrassed by that?

 

And what about the Sunnis who bomb Shia mosques (or vice versa)? Presumably there are Korans in those mosques, right? Or maybe it's okay to destroy the Koran provided Muslim men, women and children are holding onto a copy?

 

Eff that. I'm tired of caring what these people think, worrying about what might offend them, etc. Grow up, Islam. Your demands of how your printed paper should be treated are as absurd as your treatment of your fellow believers, your mothers, wives and daughters, not to mention your fellow non-believing humans.

[Ken H.]

What if the extremists are the only ones who've got it right? What if that's what Islam really is? At this point I will confess to not having read the Koran (or much of the Bible). That's why I prefaced that quote with a question, and why I'm following it up with another: is he right? Or are the exremists reading the Koran wrong?

Well it’s a good question – what’s the true nature of Islam?

 

Most any religion’s ‘guiding text’ (to try to coin a non-specific term) is so vague as to be able to lend credence to just about any position one wishes to take on most anything. No matter what the polarizing issue is; either side can easily find sections in them to support their position. If for no other reason than the original clarity (if there ever was any, which I doubt) has literally been lost in translation. Even if read in the original language (e.g. Hebrew) the interpretation of what those Hebrew words mean today has changed/evolved from what they meant 1000s of years ago. That shifting of meaning of words happens constantly in any language. So did Muhammad mean Islam to be a religion of destruction or a religion of peace? Take your pick. Certainly that’s what Eric Raymond and many others have done. Staked their claim on what they think Islam, and by extension – the will of God, is.

 

Here’s the problem though - So many people are so darn sure they know what God wants of us, yet even within any given religion there are wide disparities on what that is. But if the god they are worshiping, God, was truly the absolute of all that is; won’t (s)he/it have done a darn better job of communicating what it wanted? Indeed, isn’t the ability of absolutely perfect communication to us (humans) a requirement of being absolutely perfect? I don’t think (but I may be wrong) there is any religion of the world that concedes that their god has flaws. Including a flaw in his/her/its ability to communicate what it wants of us.

 

So if we accept that presumption/belief, then by default the only other possibility as to where the communication break down is so to speak – has to be on our end. In other words no prophet, or any other person for that matter, has ever gotten it right. If they had; the ambiguity wouldn’t exit. Differences of opinion wouldn’t, indeed couldn’t, exist. If they had gotten the will of God right, it would be literally impossible to understand the word/will of God more than one way. But no prophet could ever have the ability to accurately communicate what God wants of us because humans apparently lacks the ability to understand it. As evidenced by the lack of clarity, and differences of opinion. With God perfect, that’s the only possibility. Even in the case of a prophet who (according to its religion) actually is God, i.e. the tenants of Christianity, the best we can say is that Jesus as God on earth must have still been bound/hamstrung with the limits of his human mind and (or) body’s ability to understand and communicate it to all of the rest of us. But in the case of Jesus in particular (who remember according to Catholicism is God), the argument goes in circles. It would be impossible for Jesus/God (who has no flaws) to make that mistake. Try as we might we can’t resolve the paradox. (Shish, now even MY head is starting to hurt!)

 

So what’s my point of all this? Only that we don’t know the true nature of Islam. (Or any other religion for that matter.) Take your pick (of what its true nature is). It’s all flawed human interpretation of God’s will. None of the interpretations, including those of the religions far extremist, mainstreamers, Glenn Beck, Eric Raymond, or any person you care to name; can be right if God is truly what we purport him/she/it to be. Because if an interpretation was the right one, there wouldn’t be any interpretations at all. Only universal knowing.