That Koran-burning guy

I think it's telling that Obama and others don't want him to burn Korans because it will "place troops in danger." It's quite the (heretofore unspoken) acknowledgment of how Muslims look for excuses to kill. Of course, we knew that already - the Danish cartoons showed that- but everyone wants to pretend that this religion is so peace-loving and worthy as any other. Celebrate the diversity and all that.

Not that I'm supporting the pastor's actions, but everyone else is granted free speech, including the provocateurs with the NY mosque, so why not him? Muslims are going to do what they want to do, it really doesn't matter if this guy burns a few Korans or not.

As an aside, I read that the Iranians suspended the stoning of that woman, proving their own goodness.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100909/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_quran_burning_obama_plea

Muslims are no different to anyone else. People the world over do the things they want to do -- indoctrination just makes it that much easier.

Shelagh wrote:

People the world over do the things they want to do

I agree. So what does it matter if he burns some Korans?

For every Quran he burns, let's print two. I'm sure lulu will be happy to have the business.

Quote :

but everyone wants to pretend that this religion is so peace-loving and worthy as any other.

It is, when you consider that the KKK, the Knights Templar, the NAZIs, the Spanish Inquisition, the Trail of Tears, the Mountain Meadows massacre, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq are all founded in Christianity. Islam extremism is every bit as peace-loving and worthy as Christian extremism.

Well, Al, the difference (since it seems to elude you) is that the KKK isn't considered an acceptable, mainstream religion. And the Spanish Inquisition and Trail of Tears was -how long ago? I don't think their philosophies and methods are acceptable or are institutionally practiced today, either, have you read differently?

Re the invasion of Iraq, I don't think it was based on spreading Christianity, but I may be wrong -what's your data?

He is not wise. Why destroy another 's holy book?
Why not feed the hungry and help the downtrodden?

I think we should ignore him. He is after attention.


A man with 50 followers is not exactly news.

We simply must be discerning about what we call news. Every misguided soul's ideas are not worthy of the spotlight.

Well, we al know what to do now if we want some media attention!

Shelagh,
You are so right--just something, anything stupid.

The US Media has lost all reason. To broadcast such inflammatory talk is unconscionable It puts lives at risk.

LC wrote:

Well, Al, the difference (since it seems to elude you) is that the KKK isn't considered an acceptable, mainstream religion.

Neither, since it did elude you, is Al Qaeda.

LC wrote:

And the Spanish Inquisition and Trail of Tears was -how long ago? I don't think their philosophies and methods are acceptable or are institutionally practiced today, either, have you read differently?

Suppression of non-Christian practices. You don't think that's happening now?

LC wrote:

Re the invasion of Iraq, I don't think it was based on spreading Christianity, but I may be wrong -what's [sic] your data?

Google "bush's holy war."

alice wrote:

The US Media has lost all reason. To broadcast such inflammatory talk is unconscionable It puts lives at risk.

I agree, Alice. Anything that sells is fair game for the press. Sickening.

The media wouldn't publish it if there was no demand. The media are not the sickness. They only feed the sickness.

So children are to blame when their parents ply them with candy to satisfy their sugar cravings?

David Gergen told Anderson Cooper to not make news out of this. I agree with Gergen.

This man with 50 followers is not newsworthy. Who wanted or needed to hear about him?

Al Stevens wrote:

The media wouldn't publish it if there was no demand. The media are not the sickness. They only feed the sickness.

They need to stop feeding and fueling. CNN has too much news. We need to turn them off.
Read the newspaper.

Shelagh wrote:

So children are to blame when their parents ply them with candy to satisfy their sugar cravings?

Bad analogy. The children don't pay the parents for the candy. The parents' livelihoods don't depend on the distribution of candy to their children.

alice wrote:

Al Stevens wrote:

The media wouldn't publish it if there was no demand. The media are not the sickness. They only feed the sickness.

They need to stop feeding and fueling. CNN has too much news. We need to turn them off.
Read the newspaper.

More pap and pablum.

Give the public what it wants = the American way = freedom of the press. Give the public what you think it ought to have = that other way.

Come on Al,

Should the news media go into nut houses and report every utterance of the inmates? What , in your opinion, do we have to, need to, know?

If a five mile an hour wind blew down a twig and killed a cricket must we know?

What is newsworthy?

We watch what they show us. We need to show them. We can live without their hysterics.
We have a doctor friend who got rid of his cable because of this issue of overeporting.

alice wrote:

Come on Al,

Should the news media go into nut houses and report every utterance of the inmates? What , in your opinion, do we have to, need to, know?

If a five mile an hour wind blew down a twig and killed a cricket must we know?

What is newsworthy?

We watch what they show us. We need to show them. We can live without their hysterics.
We have a doctor friend who got rid of his cable becaus of this issue of overeporting.

What's newsworthy? News is a commodity sold for commercial consumption. It's not "have to know, need to know," it's want to know. You and I are not representative of the press media's constituency. Would that we were. They cater to a different mindset. Do you really expect them to dole out only what some higher order wants the masses to see? That's censorship in the purest sense. If that's what we want, we have to move to Singapore or some other place where the press isn't free. It won't happen here.

We are in the minority, you, me, and your doctor friend. The news stations can't sell commercial space by appealing to our demographic. If we were in the majority, they'd target us, and the others would be complaining.

That said, I disagree that this episode is too insignificant to be reported.

Citing the few numbers in that guy's congregation as proof that the story doesn't deserve mention is not the best measure with which to decide. It is the act itself, the burning of a book, in this case a holy book, an act that recalls earlier times that we do not wish to revisit. And, the burning further fuels the differences between cultures. Next we'll see them burning places of worship. With people in them. Mississippi Burning.

Yea to the media for letting us know that such an act and attitude are festering out in the heartland. Expose it and hope that its national attention and the ridicule that reigns down on it puts it into its rightful perspective and that it doesn't escalate into a national frenzy. Like the birthers. Like the Swift boaters. (Sorry, Elsie, I realize that was too long ago to be relevant.)

Thanks, too, to the media for making us realize that not one Republican Congressman spoke out against this planned book burning. (At least up until yesterday, I think. I haven't seen the news about it since then.) Cowards. I guess they had to wait and see what Rush Limbaugh would say about it before they could know what would be okay for them to say.

Al Stevens wrote:

Shelagh wrote:

So children are to blame when their parents ply them with candy to satisfy their sugar cravings?

Bad analogy. The children don't pay the parents for the candy. The parents' livelihoods don't depend on the distribution of candy to their children.

You are kidding, right? It's okay to give people something that is bad for them if it's something they want -- especially if you are being paid to do it? Like drugs, for instance.

Yeah its strange. It will upset a lot of muslims.

Moot now. He's decided not to do it, after all, according to CNN

Ann

9/10/2010


The guy's a " WHACK JOB !"


Cheers...Joe

Shelagh wrote:

You are kidding, right? It's okay to give people something that is bad for them if it's something they want -- especially if you are being paid to do it? Like drugs, for instance.

No, I'm not kidding. Freedom does not come without cost or responsibility.

And drugs are illegal. Information is not.

I am going to limit news time. If I am not their target audience--fine! They are not my target news source.

Al Stevens wrote:

LC wrote:

Well, Al, the difference (since it seems to elude you) is that the KKK isn't considered an acceptable, mainstream religion.

Neither, since it did elude you, is Al Qaeda.

Al Queda isn't responsible for the Sharia law practiced in Iran and Saudi where people are legally stoned to death or crippled in hospitals in the "eye for an eye" philosophy. And let's not forget "honor killings."

Quote :

Suppression of non-Christian practices. You don't think that's happening now?

In the US? Where? As for "Bush's holy war," the fact that some have applied that term to it -and repeat it incessantly- doesn't make it true.