The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > This is America, the beacon of freedom > Comments

This is America, the beacon of freedom : Comments

By Kourosh Ziabari, published 13/9/2010

Burning a holy book is the clear manifestation of an uncivilised and barbaric action for which there is no justification.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
"This is America, the beacon of freedom"

Yep.

That is why Americans are free to burn their own property.

They can burn a flag. They can burn a bible. And they can burn a koran.

It's called freedom.

The many Muslims who enjoy freedom in America and Australia that they could never experience in Muslim majority countries (like Iran) need to understand that freedom includes the freedom to do things they may not like.

I do not like you preaching your loathsome religion here. But I respect your right to do it.

You do not like people burning copies of the koran but you need to respect their right to do it.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Monday, 13 September 2010 9:35:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
More importantly as the Bible "says for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." For years now Muslims have been burning effigies of American Presidents and the American flag. What do you expect? Again the Bible says "for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." Unfortunately the burning of Koran is just another step in the conflict which is going to get worse.

The real problem is that Sharia Islam is a totalitarian belief which does not allow freedom of religion. There are no Christian Churches in Saudia Arabia. It is the duty of Muslims to execute apostate Muslims. These actions are incompatible with the Western ideals of freedom. I am not sure that there is a non-violent answer.
Posted by EQ, Monday, 13 September 2010 10:06:54 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think your wrong about burning bibles in USA being legal.
You must be a bit twisted to respect anyone who burns bibles or any other Holy Book .
None of the Holy Books do anything for me but I respect others of lesser intellect than myself.
If I was a War Equipment Sales Person I would use the Holy Books as "Sales Tools" benefiting the worlds biggest Industry and major Employer.
Anyone who destroys Tools has intellectual problems , even the Apes appreciate 'Tools'.
Posted by Garum Masala, Monday, 13 September 2010 10:09:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Kourosh Ziabari,

PART I

You say: “Muslims around the world are subject to the most unfair convictions and unjustifiable discriminations.”

I challenge you to give me just ONE example of a Muslim-led nation every in history where non-Muslims were treated as equals in all sense of the notion. Iran forbids Christians and other non-Muslims from being in leadership positions in government and military, even though their family may have lived in Iran for thousands of years. All the gulf states make it illegal to build any religious building at all that is not Muslim. Non-Muslims are not even allowed to enter the city of Mecca for a visit.

The Quran states explicitly on many occasions that only people of the book shall be tolerated, other religions must convert or die. But even the Christians and Jews must pay special taxes for non-belief, as well they must wear symbols clearly marking them as “Dhimmis” like Hitler did to the Jews in extermination camps.

In fact, Muslims are so “tolerant” of non-Muslims that if one them decides to change to another faith, it is stated in the Quran and hadith as law that that person shall be killed.

How dare you even attempt to try to argue that Islam is tolerant, let alone MORE tolerant than other cultures. This is an affront to all the millions upon millions of people who are subject daily to its totalitarian, barbaric ways; to all the homosexuals who apparently “don’t exist” to nations like Iran, Saudi Arabia and every other Islamic country; to all the women to are treated like possessions that the men own; to all the foreign house maids any factory workers from poor Asian countries such as Philippines who are treated no better than dogs by their masters in some of the wealthiest countries on earth – the gulf states.
Posted by Styx against Racism, Monday, 13 September 2010 10:47:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This one isn't going to go away any time soon, is it.

"Burning a holy book is the clear manifestation of an uncivilised and barbaric action for which there can't be any justification or explanation."

Agreed. But it is one of those acts that we are required to tolerate, in order to protect - much larger, and vastly more important - freedoms.

It is totally inappropriate behaviour for jumped-up nobodies to disrespect other members of the human race in this way. But it is equally inappropriate behaviour to use such stupidity as a justification to play victim.

"Muslims around the world are subject to the most unfair convictions and unjustifiable discriminations."

A little introspection might be required here, Mr Ziabari.

What is it about the external face of Islam that generates such antipathy amongst the fanatics of a different religion? Because - as you very well know - the Qur'an burners are far from representative of US citizenry as a whole, in the same way that exploding martyrs do not represent, I suspect, the totality of the Islamic world.

Or even a small fraction thereof.

So, ponder on this for a while.

You write:

"As a vanguard ideology, Islam has always emphasised the essentiality of behaving with the followers of other religions with respect and admiration"

These are words. Christians use similar words, insisting that the New Testament is devoid of any threatening behaviour, and full of charitable thoughts and deeds towards others.

Until each side matches their deeds with their words, neither is going to convince the other of their good intentions. So each will continue to find ways to instil fear and loathing in the more deliriously fanatical amongst their followers, each targetting the other.

"Thank God, Muslims have always treated the followers of other religions respectfully."

Even those Muslims with bombs strapped to their bodies?

Unfortunately this article is as one-eyed as any Pastor Jones. Which isn't going to help anybody, is it.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 13 September 2010 11:02:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

This is not about whether Islam is good or bad. Even if Islam were the wonderful, saintly, charitable belief system its adherents claim, even if the koran was as chock full of wisdom as Muslims believe, even if Muhammad really was "the best of creation" Terry Jones would STILL have the right to burn a copy of the koran.

Jones is a sleazy scumbag but he STILL has the right to burn a copy of the koran.

Burning a book is a barbaric act but Jones still has a right to burn his property.

In the US, in case you're interested, the Supreme Court affirmed this in Texas vs Johnson. The case actually concerned the right to burn an American flag. However the language of the decision makes it clear that all such symbolic acts are protected by the first amendment.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Monday, 13 September 2010 11:15:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Kourosh Ziabari,

You say: “There are numerous indications that Muslims are among . . . pacifist and peace-loving."

Where are these “indications”? Muslims nations are riddled with ethnic/tribal tension, they always have been. They are always at war with neighbouring nations, whether Muslim or not> To claim they are “peace-loving” is a pathetic play on the use of the term “peace”. You see, I have the understanding that in the Quaran the term “peace” means something very different from what a common westerner takes it to mean. A common westerner thinks it means that there is no violence at all, friendship and warm feelings between ALL people. However, in Islam, the term “peace” simply indicates that state of affairs wherein Islam dominates in all matters, including matters of religion and state, and for ALL people. Thus when an authentic Muslim says that he “wants peace”, what he is really saying is that he wants Islam to be in control, and under that control there will be no fighting because everyone will be suppressed or converted or killed. This needs to made clear to all westerners.

The problem with the Islamic moral code is precisely this: “the most venerable and esteemed people are the ones who fear Him the most and do good deeds as a result of this fear”, and from this you claim that those who abide by this fear the most are somehow the most “decent”!

You must have a strange sense of “decency”. A moral code that is implemented out of pure fear of punishment is no longer a good moral code. For when people act out of fear they tend to be suspicious, to fight, to steal and cheat, to be selfish; all things that are endemic of Islamic societies. You simply (as a matter of logic) cannot get any kind of sense of “decency” from out of a moral code of fear and submission to higher authority. Decency is a quality where a person acts from out of their “own” inner understanding that another person is an equal, a fellow human.
Posted by Styx against Racism, Monday, 13 September 2010 11:23:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Koran 33:26 He brought down from their strongholds those who had supported them from among the People of the Book and cast terror into their hearts, so that some you slew and others you took captive.

Koran 24:1 The adulterer and the adulteress shall each be given a hundred lashes.

Koran 8:19 Let not the unbelievers think that they will ever get away....Muster against them all the men and cavalry....,so that you might strike terror into the enemy of God..........
Posted by Seneca, Monday, 13 September 2010 11:38:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
America has certain freedoms, I agree.

Australia too, has freedoms. Minor details differ here and there, though, but more or less the same.

The fact that you have the right to burn whatever it is you want may be a right that we are all in agreement. But this reminds me of ex-PM Howard's inadequate response to that other political red-head. It is wrong, plain and simple. Do we remember the last well-documented group of people who burnt books?

We have managed to get an insignificant Florida pastor with a following of a few dozen to the world stage. Congratulations to the media, and to us as a global society (yes, I'm being sarcastic). But I hope this will show us that the extremists on all sides are probably just as non-mainstream and loud-mouthed as this man.

Also, I'm not an expert on the Bible, but I wonder what would happen if we put the following into practice...

If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.
— Leviticus 20:9

Perspective is key. Did a quick search and I serioulsy wonder if the Bible should be reclassified R18+

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/
Posted by jorge, Monday, 13 September 2010 12:11:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bibles, Korans, Upanishads, Rig Vedas and Buddhist scriptures should all be burnt on a daily basis along with copies of the Communist Manifesto, Milton Friedman and the IPCC Report on Climate Change, until everyone finally accepts that there is no magic in them and all the fuss about imaginary beings is a complete waste of time.
Posted by Jon J, Monday, 13 September 2010 1:12:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Seems all holy books say nice things on one page then several pages later the opposite. Be nice in-tribe, kill the out-tribe seems to be the rule. Now the tribes are all mixed up all the ancient religions have serious problems!
Be nice to everyone is a godsend to parasites and a recipe for poverty in today's dog eat dog (God eat God?) world...so it's clearly a balancing act.
Needless to say the preachers and the zealots have little to add except "Ra Ra for my side".
The fact that anyone takes these ancient propaganda fairy tales seriously is kind of sad.
Posted by Ozandy, Monday, 13 September 2010 1:32:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm hungry ... where can I find an edible copy of The Koran?
Posted by Snaps, Monday, 13 September 2010 1:54:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can only assume, stevenlmeyer, that you are so accustomed to disagreeing with me, that you did not bother to read what I wrote

>>Pericles, This is not about whether Islam is good or bad...etc etc<<

Instead you responded to something that you thought I might have written.

Just for the record, what did you think I said?
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 13 September 2010 3:04:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We can destroy our own property.

"books" like the koran and the christian "bible" are so plentiful that no industrial destruction effort could alter the availability.

Indeed, since publishing the things is a commercial operation for the organisations involved, there might be a commercial interest in creating demand for new copies.

Of much greater concern is that the vast majority of works giving insight into the stupendously vaster depth, breadth, subtlty and astute achievements of human cultures occur but rarely in private and public collections. Future archaeologists may develop a woefully skewed view of us having a dreadfully stunted culture were they to base their opinion on the "most popular" books.

If the clerics of any religion deem it offensive to see distribution copies of their "scripture" destroyed, perhaps they should institute ironclad dogma that forbids the supply to people who are not (or whose guardians are not) committed to preserving the particular artifact.

I'd *like* to see that.

Could it be extended to all related literature and propaganda?

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Monday, 13 September 2010 6:58:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LOL Pericles

You said:

"Agreed. But it is one of those acts that we are required to tolerate, in order to protect - much larger, and vastly more important - freedoms.

"It is totally inappropriate behaviour for jumped-up nobodies to disrespect other members of the human race in this way. But it is equally inappropriate behaviour to use such stupidity as a justification to play victim."

Up to that point I agreed with you 100%

The rest struck me as making it seem as if it mattered whether Islam was a "good" belief system. It doesn't.

But what annoyed me was this statement:

"What is it about the external face of Islam that generates such antipathy amongst the fanatics of a different religion?"

I, as you know, am not at all religious. I, as you also know, will defend anyone's right to say virtually anything. I would defend your right to burn a torah in public on camera and post the footage on youtube. At around $50,000 a pop it would be an expensive exercise but, hey, it's your money.

But I, who is not religious, also loathe and detest Islam.

It's true I loathe and detest ALL religions. But I focus on Islam because that is the one so many people seem ready to appease. It is only attacks on Islam that are conflated with racism as in Victoria's Orwellian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act.

Please also do me the courtesy of reacting to what I've written, not what you think I've written.

My problem is actually not with Islam. It is with the appeasement of Islam to the point WHERE WE SEEM READY TO CURTAIL OUR RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH.

It started, as I said on another thread, with Salman Rushdie. It started when I was threatened with violence for standing up for Rushdie. The threats came, not from Muslims, but from so-called "human rights activists" who accused me of racism.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Monday, 13 September 2010 7:14:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
stevenlmeyer, perhaps your loathing should be directed elsewhere? it is not islam's fault, it is those who are responsible for the appeasement (if indeed there is any) that you mention.

the world has changed (for better or worse) quite rapidly in the last decade or so. this idiot in Florida would have had no global media exposure 15-20 years ago. the local community where he resides would have just dismissed him and his few followers as bigoted (which in my opinion, they are). now, however, anything and everything is instantly transmitted to every corner of the world. we live in a world with different cultures, customs, traditions, beliefs, education levels and social norms. some things like "freedom of speech" and "freedom to dissent" that most Western nations take for granted are completely alien concepts to people in other nations (let alone to some people IN Western nations). we all, however, see the same images and the same stories. perhaps we are witnessing first-hand the societal changes that happen as a result of the instant information revolution?

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/
Posted by jorge, Monday, 13 September 2010 10:05:23 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Crikey, what an absolute load of drivel! This bloke comes from a country which regularly lashes miscreants, hangs gays and others (using an absolutely barbaric method, I might add) and stones to death "adulterers". The Iranian "justice" system is an unjust morass. Yet the state religion of this dicatorship of the imams is a beacon for the rest of the world!

The "religion of peace" answers the slightest criticism with violence. As the Yanks say, it's a "no-brainer". Any lefty or multiculti that misses the point is living in the same la-la land as this bloke.

I frankly don't care that the backwoods rev. from Florida wants to burn Qurans. It's only paper and ink, after all. My concern is the utterly predictable response (i.e. scarey) from the 1.5 billion peaceniks.
Posted by viking13, Monday, 13 September 2010 10:09:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
viking13, completely agree

The constant drone from apologists about how you should read the koran to understand muslims, or how moderates are fine is just window dressing - I suspect the bombers and the ones who want to advance islam with violence all read the koran, look at the message they get.

if moderate muslims don't approve of the activities of the few radicals why do they do nothing about it, after all, it's their religion being trashed isn't it.

I suspect that deep down inside, they agree with the ones who do the damage, what else can you think?

I don't need to read the koran to understand the muslim world, I see it any time anyone dares to criticize it, usually violence, always threats and always bullying.

Tolerating their intolerance will not get us a better society, it will just get us more hardened to further demands from muslims that we retreat our standards. More apologists will insist we have to tolerate more and more of their uncompromising world view
Posted by rpg, Tuesday, 14 September 2010 7:17:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
jorge,

I loathe Islam. I would not be FOCUSING on Islam if it were not for the threat appeasement posed.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Tuesday, 14 September 2010 7:49:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It still sounds as though you are looking for some kind of conflict, stevenlmeyer.

>>But what annoyed me was this statement:

"What is it about the external face of Islam that generates such antipathy amongst the fanatics of a different religion?"

I, as you know, am not at all religious.<<

In which case, it was not aimed at you, was it?

So, with the greatest respect, your taking exception to the question does not provide any form of answer.

It is relatively unusual for an atheist to take such an aggressive stance against a religion, as opposed, of course, to the tiny percentage of nutters who use that religion as some kind of excuse for their actions.

Nevertheless, I have - as I think I made perfectly clear - no time for the feigned offence-taking that is represented by the article in question.

My main concern is with the mental damage that religion causes, turning weak and impressionable individuals into mindless robots.

Like this guy.

"As he prepared to martyr himself by attacking the Holsworthy army base, alleged terrorist Wissam Fattal asked his mother: 'Don't you want paradise? Don't you want your son and yourself to go to paradise to the highest degree?'" (Victorian Supreme Court transcript)

How sick is that.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 14 September 2010 8:49:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
""As he prepared to martyr himself by attacking the Holsworthy army base, alleged terrorist Wissam Fattal asked his mother:

" 'Don't you want paradise? Don't you want your son and yourself to go to paradise to the highest degree?' (Victorian Supreme Court transcript)

How sick is that." .. Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 14 September 2010 8:49:38 AM

Exactly. That is the belief that got Richard Dawkin's started on countering religion in the main sphere (as well as his frustration with dealing with creationists as a biologist). Here is the article he wrote 9 years ago, tomorrow.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/15/september11.politicsphilosophyandsociety1
Posted by McReal, Tuesday, 14 September 2010 11:22:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To the author:

I will apologise (entirely against their will)for stevenlmeyer and the other wingnuts who, in their tribal primitivity, confuse the individual and the collective.

I have very rarely read such a lot of horse dookey as is exemplified by some of the the sillier and more massively ignorant responses to this article.

It is a shame these people probably don't get out more. They should be screaming their lungs out, for their team and against the opposition, at the nearest rugby fixture. That's a healthier sort of tribalism. Then they cn move on, to establishing a thoughtful dialogue, face to face, with someone who is not like them.

But my guess is that they are hypnotised by their computer screens, stuck like chooks on chalklines.

Kind regards
Posted by Sir Vivor, Wednesday, 15 September 2010 12:08:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sirvivor, what a groveler .. that's up there with geraldine doogue's "we salute you" grovel

this is a problem we seem to find ourselves in, whenever people quite rightly express their opinions, someone like yourself feels they have to run around apologizing .. because you feel there might be some hurt feelings.

the reason you are able to do this freely is because people in your past have NOT tolerated the intolerance of others, see europe WWII, the pacaific war of WWII etc.

apologise for your own weakness, but trying to ingratiate yourself by incessant grovelling is sickening.

we are all entitled to our opinions , you might not like them but need to learn some tolerance yourself, and tolerate other people's opinions.
Posted by Amicus, Wednesday, 15 September 2010 4:00:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
given the amount of deaths as a result of secularism it is a wonder someone has not used the 'origin of species' as toilet paper. It would be certainly more useful than brainwashing people with its stupidity.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 15 September 2010 4:28:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner, The Origin of Species can't be stupid, that act is reserved for humans like you & I and Amicus.

Dawkins can say and think stupid things. He is brilliant at deductive logic, but pretends that inductive logic offers no case for the agnostics and the faithful.

Myself, I remember looking at the flowers on the alter, and wondering what they would know of the rest of us looking at them. Less, I conclude, than a guppy would know of the shifting shapes outside its bowl of water and bright pebbles.

About as much as Professor Dawkins allows, I am led to believe, of a world entirely beyond his senses and world-class intellect.

As for your opinion of the Origin of Species, have you read it? It's long and mostly dull. Better to read The Voyage of the Beagle, by the same author.

Amicus, you have missed my point, entirely. But a C+ for trying.
Posted by Sir Vivor, Wednesday, 15 September 2010 4:47:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I gat as far as "There are numerous indications that Muslims are among the most pacifist and peace-loving people in the world. Islam has categorically rebuffed violence and aggression towards the people and condemned those who use force against others and undermine their esteem." and could not stomach any more of this.

The burning of a printed copy of a book which can easily be reprinted is a terifying act and seemingly imensly evil. The threat of doing so prompt's massive protests from people of faith worried about what the world is coming to.

Meanwhile rape victims are stoned to death in the name of their faith, the lives of innocents are threatened (and taken) in the name of their faith, property belonging to other faiths is destroyed in the name of their faith, females are denied an education in the name of their faith and the response is as best muted. There are no massive protests from people of that faith against those who bring their faith into disrepute. Those muslims who speak against such actions do so in muted terms, rarely with the outrage that the idea of burning pages of a copy of a book brings or unflatering cartoon depictions of their prophet.

If muslims really hold to the values the author suggests then they should be having massive protests and expressing clear outrage against those who use their faith as an excuse to commit real acts of terror against others, not against some pastor destroying his own property.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 16 September 2010 7:52:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sirvivor if you had a different point to the one I understood, then as a communicator you get an F for Fail.

Not even a good try, if you have to explain after the event what your message was.

So now the message I have is, you were grovelling and then changed your mind ...
Posted by Amicus, Thursday, 16 September 2010 8:47:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let's be fair and acknowledge the extremists on the Christian side, especially in the US. Sounds like a terrorist and he's a Christian:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/south/view/20100911man_charged_in_abortion_clinic_bomb_plot/srvc=home&position=recent

- I just found out there was a Muslim prayer room inside the WTC. What does this tell us about extremists?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/nyregion/11religion.html?_r=1

- Muslim organisations ARE protesting against violence etc. The fact that there is violence against Christians in the first place is abhorrent. Still, the actions of a few extremists do not reflect on the whole.
http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Muslim-organisations-condemn-attack-against-Protestant-clergyman-19452.html

- Finally, I agree with this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/02/AR2010090203990.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Throughout history which of the world's major religions has been the most tolerant (I would hesitate to say 100% tolerant), present extremists excluded?

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/
Posted by jorge, Thursday, 16 September 2010 11:16:56 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amicus, regarding your second post to me, you seem to be the kind of person who likes simply put, plain to read answers.

I was responding to Runner's comment, on a different aspect of the general topic.

At the end of the post, I remarked to you that you missed the point of my original post. My apology, if that was confusing.

Amicus, for a self-proclaimed tolerant person, you are certainly a hard marker - that's two F's for my efforts!
Posted by Sir Vivor, Thursday, 16 September 2010 11:42:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SirVivor

'As for your opinion of the Origin of Species, have you read it? It's long and mostly dull. Better to read The Voyage of the Beagle, by the same author.'

Darwin himself says 'You will be greatly disappointed (by the forthcoming book); it will be grievously too hypothetical.'

Think of all the time scientist have wasted on hypothetical myths. Thankfully many have worked on the advancement of humanity rather than twisting observations in order to confirm dogmas.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 16 September 2010 12:33:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner, regarding your statement that

"Think of all the time scientist have wasted on hypothetical myths. Thankfully many have worked on the advancement of humanity rather than twisting observations in order to confirm dogmas."

I expect that far more politicians and religious leaders than scientists are adept at twisting observations to fit dogma.

My assumption is that you reject Darwin's hypotheses about organic evolution through natural selection.

My opinion is that the observations in evolution's favour far outweigh the arguments against it. It is a robust and useful set of ideas in modern biology, and entirely consistent with the technologised production industries that apply genetic engineering; also the laboratory methods using genetic engineering to test hypotheses related to organic evolution.

I am opposed to genetically engineered crops because in my opinion, the large companies that promote their GE products are interested in returns to their shareholders rather than long-term sustainability, and their PR folks are paid to twist the facts to fit their dogma.

Do you believe burqas should be outlawed? My partner and I have decided that, if Burqas are outlawed, then SUV's with deep-tinted windows should be taken off the road, and men with full beards who wear sunglasses in public should be arrested.
Posted by Sir Vivor, Thursday, 16 September 2010 1:29:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sir Vivor

'Do you believe burqas should be outlawed?'

Actually no. It would actually be a lot better if we were alot smarter about our immigration policy. Secular organisations like The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal are really more of a concern than Islam itself. They seem bent on pushing their contradictory dogmas.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/cover-up-for-public-pool-event/story-e6freuzr-1225924293272
Posted by runner, Thursday, 16 September 2010 2:22:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner, from the article

"The ban on skimpy clothes will apply between 6.15 and 8.15pm on August 21 next year, a time when the pool is closed to the public and normally used by a Muslim women's swimming group."

Not all that horrible but I'd hate to see the approach applied to other situations. Is this driven by muslims or by non-muslim organisers trying to make them feel more comfortable?

I do have to wonder how anybody who would be bothered by bare shoulders or thighs copes with a shopping trip in summer or a saturday afternoon at the local park.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 16 September 2010 3:07:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Burning a holy book is the clear manifestation of an uncivilised and barbaric action for which there can't be any justification or explanation."

To quote About.com:Archeology
"In March 2001, six months before the September 11th bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City, the Taliban destroyed two ancient statues of the Buddha called Bamiyan in an attempt to cleanse the country of Afghanistan of what they perceived as Hindu heresy."

Both are symbolic barbarism, unforgivable and show lack of insight and intelligence but to my mind destroying those 1500 year old statues was a far greater crime than burning some books that can be reprinted.
Posted by fiandra, Thursday, 16 September 2010 3:09:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let's get to the nub of the matter:

"Burning a holy book is the clear manifestation of an uncivilised and barbaric action for which there can't be any justification or explanation."

Burning ANY book is "the clear manifestation of an uncivilised and barbaric action..."

But guess what? In a secular liberal democracy Terry Jones' church is allowed to destroy its own property no matter how uncivilised and barbaric that action might be. And you have a right to be upset and to call the person doing this uncivilised and barbaric. But, at least in the US, there is no law that can stop the church. Which of course does not stop the Federal government trying to intimidate church members by sending the FBI around.

This whole argument is STUPID.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Thursday, 16 September 2010 3:19:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have to agree with runner.

In the article it says that even the vice-president of the Islamic Society of Victoria is not in agreement with the ban. Makes me wonder why the Dandenong City Council and the YMCA requested for the modest clothing.

It's common decency to dress modestly when going to a place of worship (church, mosque, temple etc.) and even a requirement when visiting some countries, or parts of countries (Vatican, Malaysia, Iran - whether you like it or not). But to a pool event in Australia?

If it is out-of-hours and a private event, I wouldn't have much of a problem with the ban as it wouldn't be any different to say a costume party etc. But I think the Dandenong City Council has not quite found the best way to "encourage people to socialise together." Then again, from personal experience, too much "organised fun" at events results in no fun at all.

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/
Posted by jorge, Thursday, 16 September 2010 4:51:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Like others, I do not like the Terry Jones' of this world. Book-burning of any kind is reprehensible ...

However, when I was a border at a Catholic convent many, many years ago, the nuns instructed us that if we needed to dispose of a Bible, missal etc. it should be burned, not thrown in the rubbish or buried.

Billions of 'holy' books have been produced; we would be awash with them if they had not been disposed of in some way.

Muslims fight other Muslims ... books of the Koran are undoubtedly destroyed ... How do they justify this?

an interesting artilce
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/09/20/the-third-choice/
Posted by Danielle, Wednesday, 22 September 2010 12:27:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy