Jump to content

Pastor who wants to burn the Qu'ran.


Zilla
 Share

Recommended Posts

And no, the terrorists claiming to be Muslim is not a valid excuse; would you compare the entirety of Christianity to jackasses like the Westboro Baptist Church?

Give me an hour and I can point out about 20 places in the New Testament where the WBC is outright wrong. "God hates [bleep]s" contradicts the very core of Christianity. How many places in the Qu'ran can Muslims point out that contradict what the extremists are doing?

 

A peaceful religion's response to crazies burning its holy book would be to pray for that individual, not put out death threats. Clearly we didn't see that here. We also saw that many middle easterners had a very difficult time distinguishing this nobody from all of Christianity, the West or even the POTUS. Freedom of speech is an impossible concept to them, and the world is worse off for it.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And no, the terrorists claiming to be Muslim is not a valid excuse; would you compare the entirety of Christianity to jackasses like the Westboro Baptist Church?

Give me an hour and I can point out about 20 places in the New Testament where the WBC is outright wrong. "God hates [bleep]s" contradicts the very core of Christianity. How many places in the Qu'ran can Muslims point out that contradict what the extremists are doing?

 

A peaceful religion's response to crazies burning its holy book would be to pray for that individual, not put out death threats. Clearly we didn't see that here. We also saw that many middle easterners had a very difficult time distinguishing this nobody from all of Christianity, the West or even the POTUS. Freedom of speech is an impossible concept to them, and the world is worse off for it.

An important thing to remember is that most people who follow any religion do so selectively. Most people know not to follow the violent parts to the letter because society has changed in a way that makes it unacceptable. To go with the WBC example, they're just following the line about homosexuality being evil and more or less ignoring the rest of the book (Or using it to justify their bigotry, they hate everything that isn't them).

Most Muslims aren't going to be blowing themselves up because their book says so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

burning of any book would upset me but the Quran is an exceptional piece of literature like the Bible, it's been around thousands of years and is beautifully written. this guy will get what he deserves

monoclesmilecopy.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He says he's going to burn it then that he isn't then that he will... now what?

Now its time to forget about him.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kafei; There's a difference between making a Muslim COMMUNITY CENTER a couple blocks away with no ill will in it (innocent until proven guilty, and the dudes running it are FAR from any government watch lists), which is to be honest made to promote understanding of the religion of Islam and try to improve the community (hence the term "community center"), and doing something designed to antagonize and generally piss off over a billion people on this planet for no good reason. And no, the terrorists claiming to be Muslim is not a valid excuse; would you compare the entirety of Christianity to jackasses like the Westboro Baptist Church?

 

Whether the people behind the Park51 have ill will or not is immaterial. They are pissing off people left and right. Surely someone interested in a community center would be more in tune with public sensibilities and find a more appropriate location.

 

And, BTW, this "community center" will have prayer space for upwards of 2000 people.

 

And also, BTW, the official website for the project only within the past month changed the nomenclature to "prayer space" from "mosque." You can still find the old version of the site in Google's cache. It's not a COMMUNITY CENTER - it's a MOSQUE.

 

Why is this pissing people off? Give me precise reasons. And before you say it, the 9/11 attacks aren't an excuse because blaming the entirety of Islam for that is being ignorant of Islam. Also, if you're going to make the argument that this was made to make people mad, then you have to assume that it was made with ill will in mind.

 

In a building that's designed to be New York City size in any respect, it is FAR from difficult to make something able to support that many people. Another aspect to remember is that this also does double duty in relieving pressure on a nearby mosque that's been having space problems for a while (if memory serves, I'll retract this if it's wrong). Making one section of the building a mosque is comparable to making one section of a YMCA a church; it's to be expected, considering that it was made by a religious group.

 

Sees_all, I am not an expert on the Qu'ran, but if some Youtube-fu is exercised, I'm fairly certain that multiple videos of different experts and scholars on it will be able to do just that. There are ways of taking any text out of context, even these ones.

You never know which rabbit hole you jump into will lead to Wonderland. - Ember3579

Aku Soku Zan. - Shinsengumi

You wanna mess with me or my friends? Pick your poison.

If you have any complaints about me, please refer to this link. Your problems are important to me.

Don't talk smack if you're not willing to say it to the person's face. On the same line, if you're not willing to back up your opinions no matter what, your opinion may as well be nonexistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not supporting what he is doing, but how come Muslims can burn the American flag and no one cares, but when he burns there Qu'ran, the media goes nuts?

My relaxation method involves a bottle of lotion, beautiful women, and partial nudity. Yes I get massages.

 

ojdv.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sees_all, I am not an expert on the Qu'ran, but if some Youtube-fu is exercised, I'm fairly certain that multiple videos of different experts and scholars on it will be able to do just that. There are ways of taking any text out of context, even these ones.

 

Right, but they could also be taking it out of context. The new testament is very clear about many things, especially over the whole "God loves everyone" part. In fact, its so clear that any interpretation otherwise is outright idiotic.

 

With Islam, you've got a large population that has an interpretation of the Qu'ran that all non-believers must convert, be taxed, or killed. Their belief isn't "idiotic" either, its in there and can rationally be interpreted to say exactly that (different translations may give different texts but the same idea is still there). The Qu'ran also takes a large step backward from the "turn the other cheek" forgiveness lesson back to Babylonian law, "eye for an eye."

 

Any Muslim wanting this kind of religious justice isn't radical, it's in their holy book. I don't fault them for having faith, but somehow they need to modernize and realize the entire world isn't bound to their Sharia law.

 

In the "west", we've been accustomed to all these great freedoms that we've learned to live and let live. Our mentality is, "I'm going to do my thing, and you can do your thing. As long as you're not directly injuring me, or anyone else, we're cool."

These extremists can't let that happen, and when they intervene they become terrorists.

 

At this point, if the Pastor decides not to burn these Qu'rans because "it endangers the troops," or "Christians will suffer/die", it'll mean that terrorism won, just like it beat Comedy Central. If he decides that it'll offend the sensibilities of a billion people world wide for a fleeting minute, that's a rational and respectable decision but it won't matter to the extremists; they'll see it as a victory (terrorism wins).

 

Unfortunately we're in a no-win situation because some nobody decided that their actions spoke louder than words, not realizing how true it was.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why they're making a big deal about this when other countries are burning bibles and american flags.

Because muslims aren't killing american civilians.

2egffxf.png

[hide]

Felix, je moeder.

Je moeder felix

Je vader, felix.

Felix, je oma.

Felix, je ongelofelijk gave pwnaze avatar B)

Felix, je moeder.

[/hide]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And no, the terrorists claiming to be Muslim is not a valid excuse; would you compare the entirety of Christianity to jackasses like the Westboro Baptist Church?

Give me an hour and I can point out about 20 places in the New Testament where the WBC is outright wrong. "God hates [bleep]s" contradicts the very core of Christianity. How many places in the Qu'ran can Muslims point out that contradict what the extremists are doing?

 

A peaceful religion's response to crazies burning its holy book would be to pray for that individual, not put out death threats. Clearly we didn't see that here. We also saw that many middle easterners had a very difficult time distinguishing this nobody from all of Christianity, the West or even the POTUS. Freedom of speech is an impossible concept to them, and the world is worse off for it.

 

from the Qu'ran: " You shall not take your own life."

 

it doesn't get much clearer than that. Americans and the rest of the world are xenophobic, and simply don't even know the basics of Islam.

 

the community and religious leaders of Muslim groupings are not the ones to issue death threats. I'm pretty sure if i staged an "abortion party" or "bible-burning fest" i could get the extreme right to issue death threats in front of the media. I'm pretty sure i could get the same death threats for portraying Jesus as a canibal in a political cartoon, or for wanting to build a "Mega-Mosque" 2 blocks from ground zero.

 

you paint all Muslims as extremists, but excuse Christian fundamentalists as a "tiny minority"

 

"Freedom from slander and the mockery of Holy Symbols" is an impossible concept to many westeners, especially Americans. Speech doesn't necessarily have to be 100% free, but can be regulated to disallow behaviors that can only be demeaning and disrespectful ( such as the laws are in many European democracies). The misunderstandings are a two-way street. We impose our "universal rights" on them, and they impose their "universal rights" on us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And no, the terrorists claiming to be Muslim is not a valid excuse; would you compare the entirety of Christianity to jackasses like the Westboro Baptist Church?

Give me an hour and I can point out about 20 places in the New Testament where the WBC is outright wrong. "God hates [bleep]s" contradicts the very core of Christianity. How many places in the Qu'ran can Muslims point out that contradict what the extremists are doing?

 

A peaceful religion's response to crazies burning its holy book would be to pray for that individual, not put out death threats. Clearly we didn't see that here. We also saw that many middle easterners had a very difficult time distinguishing this nobody from all of Christianity, the West or even the POTUS. Freedom of speech is an impossible concept to them, and the world is worse off for it.

 

from the Qu'ran: " You shall not take your own life."

 

it doesn't get much clearer than that. Americans and the rest of the world are xenophobic, and simply don't even know the basics of Islam.

 

the community and religious leaders of Muslim groupings are not the ones to issue death threats. I'm pretty sure if i staged an "abortion party" or "bible-burning fest" i could get the extreme right to issue death threats in front of the media. I'm pretty sure i could get the same death threats for portraying Jesus as a canibal in a political cartoon, or for wanting to build a "Mega-Mosque" 2 blocks from ground zero.

 

you paint all Muslims as extremists, but excuse Christian fundamentalists as a "tiny minority"

 

"Freedom from slander and the mockery of Holy Symbols" is an impossible concept to many westeners, especially Americans. Speech doesn't necessarily have to be 100% free, but can be regulated to disallow behaviors that can only be demeaning and disrespectful ( such as the laws are in many European democracies). The misunderstandings are a two-way street. We impose our "universal rights" on them, and they impose their "universal rights" on us.

Not really. Due to the decentralized nature of Islam, scholars are allowed to issue a "fataawa" (better known in its plural "fatwa") which are opinions of scholars, many of which the West concern involves killing people. Because the vast majority [population wise] of Christianity has a centralized hierarchy, no one can really issue death warrants because there aren't really popular fringe bishops. I would say an Ayatollah is the Islamic equal to a Christian patriarch and I can easily name Ayatollah Khomeini off the top of my head for issuing a fataawa for the death of the writer of the Satanic Verses, but I cannot recall a patriarch doing so. I can see you're trying to be impartial which I admire as many more people should be but impartiality also requires that you see each group as is, not mentally equalize them [such as if Islam is comprised of 1% of extremists, than there is an equal percent in Christianity or that each have equal dispositions towards extremism. I know you didn't say that verbatim but that's how you were leaning.].

kaisershami.png

He who wears his morality but as his best garment were better naked... Your daily life is your temple and your religion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

the community and religious leaders of Muslim groupings are not the ones to issue death threats. I'm pretty sure if i staged an "abortion party" or "bible-burning fest" i could get the extreme right to issue death threats in front of the media. I'm pretty sure i could get the same death threats for portraying Jesus as a canibal in a political cartoon, or for wanting to build a "Mega-Mosque" 2 blocks from ground zero.

 

 

South park has used Jesus in their episodes multiple times in ways highly unflattering, yet there were no death threats against the creators...

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

South park has used Jesus in their episodes multiple times in ways highly unflattering, yet there were no death threats against the creators...

 

I'd love to see someone counter argue that.

 

 

Because muslims aren't killing american civilians.

I guess you conveniently forgot today's date?

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world."

Abraham Lincoln

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why they're making a big deal about this when other countries are burning bibles and american flags.

Because muslims aren't killing american civilians.

But they have. They are doing the same thing that americans are doing. Blaming a whole society for the actions of a small percent.

99 Hunter - November 1st, 2008

99 Cooking -July 22nd, 2009

99 Firemaking - July 29th, 2010

99 Fletching - December 30th, 2010

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not really. Due to the decentralized nature of Islam, scholars are allowed to issue a "fataawa" (better known in its plural "fatwa") which are opinions of scholars, many of which the West concern involves killing people. Because the vast majority [population wise] of Christianity has a centralized hierarchy, no one can really issue death warrants because there aren't really popular fringe bishops. I would say an Ayatollah is the Islamic equal to a Christian patriarch and I can easily name Ayatollah Khomeini off the top of my head for issuing a fataawa for the death of the writer of the Satanic Verses, but I cannot recall a patriarch doing so. I can see you're trying to be impartial which I admire as many more people should be but impartiality also requires that you see each group as is, not mentally equalize them [such as if Islam is comprised of 1% of extremists, than there is an equal percent in Christianity or that each have equal dispositions towards extremism. I know you didn't say that verbatim but that's how you were leaning.].

 

Centralized structure? I can visit the churches of 20 different protestant denominations and independent churches downtown in my city. population: 170 000. You say "scholars" are the most important. The day to day teachings of a priest / speaker are at least equally important, as they cement, exemplify and highlight the moral attitudes of their congregation.

 

this following list does not list "Christians" who are involved in independent churches http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members

 

Nowhere does my argument attribute an equal proportion of extremists based on their particular faith. I argue that there is a significant amount of extremists who declare themselves as members of both faiths. I argue that the media marginalizes Christian extremists, and propagates the "threat" of Muslim extremists. defining an extremist as a "radical fundamentalist" or "missionary fundamentalist" many basic tenets of the republicans define them all as extremists (which in global political terms makes sense)

 

 

South park has used Jesus in their episodes multiple times in ways highly unflattering, yet there were no death threats against the creators...

 

I'd love to see someone counter argue that.

 

 

http://matt.blogs.playtime-magazine.com/2010/04/26/why-i-dont-draw-mohammed-peace-be-upon-him-and-all-that/

i was thinking of making an own topic with this article as its outlet to challenge some of the old "dogmas" here on tif, here's a tiny extract (the whole thing is worth reading).

 

I find it hard to believe that no Christian has ever sent a death threat to the show’s [south park's] creators. It’s just not possible. As much as most Christians want to distance themselves from the lunatic fringe, it is a fact that there are self-identified “Christians” in the U.S. that promote violent attitudes and behavior, even if they don’t actively engage in domestic terrorism. I’m sure that they send death threats on a regular basis to virtually anyone and everyone that offends them, because it’s not possible to be that committed to an extreme religious paradigm and not react to ideological threats with the same hyperbolic hypersensitivity with which one interprets and adopts Biblical doctrine. I guess it’s a testament to the relative paucity of the commitment of the lunatic fringe that nobody takes these threats seriously, even if they are unsettling.

 

this article is very pertinent. i don't know of an official press release, but yeah, i'd say the school of thought is a pretty clear counter-argument.

 

however, "Christians" will at least resort to death threats for teaching factual evolution [note this is the factual, documented scenario where organisms collectively evolve during short periods of time, bacteria, insects and the like], much like "Muslims" are responsible for 9/11.

 

one example: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/professors-in-c/

 

 

 

I'd just like to point out that you've all commented on the same feature of my argument and ignored the other facets. I am no insinuating a "you can't contradict me so i'm right" fallacy by any means. I do, however, find it interesting that the primary features of my argument stand unchallenged and uncommented upon.

 

 

it's easy to want to declare a western "moral high-ground" legitimizing completely unrestricted freedom of speech. Is that the most ethical approach though? with amended free speech in large parts of Europe, is there even a consistent "Western" definition of freedom of expression? I sit with more questions than answers from my vantage point at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not really. Due to the decentralized nature of Islam, scholars are allowed to issue a "fataawa" (better known in its plural "fatwa") which are opinions of scholars, many of which the West concern involves killing people. Because the vast majority [population wise] of Christianity has a centralized hierarchy, no one can really issue death warrants because there aren't really popular fringe bishops. I would say an Ayatollah is the Islamic equal to a Christian patriarch and I can easily name Ayatollah Khomeini off the top of my head for issuing a fataawa for the death of the writer of the Satanic Verses, but I cannot recall a patriarch doing so. I can see you're trying to be impartial which I admire as many more people should be but impartiality also requires that you see each group as is, not mentally equalize them [such as if Islam is comprised of 1% of extremists, than there is an equal percent in Christianity or that each have equal dispositions towards extremism. I know you didn't say that verbatim but that's how you were leaning.].

 

Centralized structure? I can visit the churches of 20 different protestant denominations and independent churches downtown in my city. population: 170 000. You say "scholars" are the most important. The day to day teachings of a priest / speaker are at least equally important, as they cement, exemplify and highlight the moral attitudes of their congregation.

 

this following list does not list "Christians" who are involved in independent churches http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members

 

Nowhere does my argument attribute an equal proportion of extremists based on their particular faith. I argue that there is a significant amount of extremists who declare themselves as members of both faiths. I argue that the media marginalizes Christian extremists, and propagates the "threat" of Muslim extremists. defining an extremist as a "radical fundamentalist" or "missionary fundamentalist" many basic tenets of the republicans define them all as extremists (which in global political terms makes sense)

I was referring to "scholars" in Islam who issue fatwa. A scholar in Islam is always at least an imam (priest). I'm not talking scholars as in Christian theologians. A scholar just denotes someone [clergy] who is a "lawyer" of shari'a.

 

And that Wikipedia list that you linked proved my point numerically. I said the vast majority population wise in Christianity was under a hierarchy. I believe there's like 1.2 billion Catholics, plus like 200 million Eastern Orthodox and 50 million Oriental Orthodox, those alone number to about 1.5billion. Now unless there are 1.5 billion nondenominational independent Christians [which is physically impossible], my point still stands.

 

As for me saying you leaned towards the attribution of equal distribution of extremism that was eisegesis on my part.

kaisershami.png

He who wears his morality but as his best garment were better naked... Your daily life is your temple and your religion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Christianity

 

claims there were 2.1 billion self-proclaimed Christians in 2001.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.png

world population has increased by at least 500million since that date, and with 33% Christians in the world, if that figure remains constant that gives for about 2,25 billion Christians today. that gives for a little less than 800m Christians falling outside your grouping.

 

it's half of what you wanted, but a third of Christians, which i would call significant. what do you call it?

 

 

 

i think this thread has the potential for very interesting discussion, if someone argues other points mentioned on this last page of the thread :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

South park has used Jesus in their episodes multiple times in ways highly unflattering, yet there were no death threats against the creators...

 

I'd love to see someone counter argue that.

 

 

http://matt.blogs.playtime-magazine.com/2010/04/26/why-i-dont-draw-mohammed-peace-be-upon-him-and-all-that/

i was thinking of making an own topic with this article as its outlet to challenge some of the old "dogmas" here on tif, here's a tiny extract (the whole thing is worth reading).

 

I find it hard to believe that no Christian has ever sent a death threat to the shows [south park's] creators. Its just not possible. As much as most Christians want to distance themselves from the lunatic fringe, it is a fact that there are self-identified Christians in the U.S. that promote violent attitudes and behavior, even if they dont actively engage in domestic terrorism. Im sure that they send death threats on a regular basis to virtually anyone and everyone that offends them, because its not possible to be that committed to an extreme religious paradigm and not react to ideological threats with the same hyperbolic hypersensitivity with which one interprets and adopts Biblical doctrine. I guess its a testament to the relative paucity of the commitment of the lunatic fringe that nobody takes these threats seriously, even if they are unsettling.

 

this article is very pertinent. i don't know of an official press release, but yeah, i'd say the school of thought is a pretty clear counter-argument.

 

however, "Christians" will at least resort to death threats for teaching factual evolution [note this is the factual, documented scenario where organisms collectively evolve during short periods of time, bacteria, insects and the like], much like "Muslims" are responsible for 9/11.

 

one example: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/professors-in-c/

 

While he "finds it hard to believe" that's not the same thing as an international outcry. A few lunatics isn't the same as public pressure that merits cancelling the episode.

 

I don't see what you're attempting to prove here - while there are radicals in every religion a few lunatics making death threats doesn't equal an international outcry.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

South park has used Jesus in their episodes multiple times in ways highly unflattering, yet there were no death threats against the creators...

 

I'd love to see someone counter argue that.

 

 

http://matt.blogs.playtime-magazine.com/2010/04/26/why-i-dont-draw-mohammed-peace-be-upon-him-and-all-that/

i was thinking of making an own topic with this article as its outlet to challenge some of the old "dogmas" here on tif, here's a tiny extract (the whole thing is worth reading).

 

I find it hard to believe that no Christian has ever sent a death threat to the shows [south park's] creators. Its just not possible. As much as most Christians want to distance themselves from the lunatic fringe, it is a fact that there are self-identified Christians in the U.S. that promote violent attitudes and behavior, even if they dont actively engage in domestic terrorism. Im sure that they send death threats on a regular basis to virtually anyone and everyone that offends them, because its not possible to be that committed to an extreme religious paradigm and not react to ideological threats with the same hyperbolic hypersensitivity with which one interprets and adopts Biblical doctrine. I guess its a testament to the relative paucity of the commitment of the lunatic fringe that nobody takes these threats seriously, even if they are unsettling.

 

this article is very pertinent. i don't know of an official press release, but yeah, i'd say the school of thought is a pretty clear counter-argument.

 

however, "Christians" will at least resort to death threats for teaching factual evolution [note this is the factual, documented scenario where organisms collectively evolve during short periods of time, bacteria, insects and the like], much like "Muslims" are responsible for 9/11.

 

one example: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/professors-in-c/

 

While he "finds it hard to believe" that's not the same thing as an international outcry. A few lunatics isn't the same as public pressure that merits cancelling the episode.

 

I don't see what you're attempting to prove here - while there are radicals in every religion a few lunatics making death threats doesn't equal an international outcry.

 

 

you state: "South park has used Jesus in their episodes multiple times in ways highly unflattering, yet there were no death threats against the creators..."

 

I disagree and quote: "I find it hard to believe that no Christian has ever sent a death threat to the shows [south park's] creators. Its just not possible." followed by as much justification as you can get, without an official press release by someone at south park confirming death threats.

 

your argument was "death threats" not international outcry. The Muslim outcry may have to do with the religion's belief in non-depiction of Mohammed. IF the same were the case with Jesus in Christianity, wouldn't the outcry be the same? it's hard to compare two different cultures and sets of customs directly. I don't think that should be done, because it ignores all the cultural differences.

 

the second part of my argument outlines the fact that "when extremist Christians send death threats to scientists who teach empirically verified factual evolution (read: Truth), it's not unlikely that the same people would send death threats for much more outrageous public display. It's a formally fallacious argument, but in terms of sociology it fits human psyche.

 

And thus i have presented a "counter-argument" to your original claim, just like Das asked. There is after all no formal requirement for all death threats to be announced to the public, and so it would be unreasonable to demand "proof" of death threats since this isn't necessarily part of the public domain. Showing that it's very likely that death threats have been received (as i believe i've done) is the best anyone can do, unless a press release is ushered that denies or confirms the existence of any such threats.

 

 

I wish someone would argue some of the claims i've made that no one has commented on; i'd really appreciate more viewpoints (or else i wouldn't want to participate in a discussion).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Some U.S. Muslims say their national organizations share the blame, for answering intricate questions about Islam with platitudes, and failing to fully examine the potential for extremism within their communities. "

"The reality is that there are very well-funded initiatives to spread misinformation about Islam," said Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America, an umbrella group for thousands of Muslims."

Well they seem to be trying.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100912/ap_on_re_us/us_american_muslims

 

"Throughout the recent anti-Muslim outburst, American Muslim leaders have taken pains to acknowledge that many in their community have prospered in the U.S., and that Muslims have more freedom here than they would in many other countries.

 

At the same time, fatigue is setting in. They wonder: How many more times will they have to condemn violent extremism before non-Muslim Americans believe them?"

 

Good question.

99 Hunter - November 1st, 2008

99 Cooking -July 22nd, 2009

99 Firemaking - July 29th, 2010

99 Fletching - December 30th, 2010

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.