i understand that. what i am saying is that these people with differing opinions are wrong about what is important. it is incredibly important that we maintain a policy whereby protest of ideas, no matter how popular or unpopular those ideas are, is allowed and encouraged. george bush likes to say that muslim terrorists hate us for our freedoms. lets assume for the sake of argument that that is true. should we approve when our leaders discourage our freedoms for fear of retribution? another question. if i started a religion, and i had a holy text, would you be ok with people burning that? how many followers would i need before it became improper to burn my sacred text. could i lower the number of followers if mine were just extra violent and threatening? actually the level of disrespect is appropriate. what does it presume? of what? i know what islam is. prejudice implies i am ignorant about islam and i am prejudging it. i am not. i know plenty.
well at least we can all agree on something--that muslim's have a statistically significant high population of physco freaks. There's some serious flaw(s) in this religion that propagates such evil in the world.
Allowed, yes. No one is suggesting that he not be allowed. Get over it. Encouraged? Hell no. I also have the right to protest HIS actions and I am exercising them. I do not encourage divisive foolishness. Burning books is supreme foolishness that I don't approve of. It is obviously a well-know symbolic act for suppressing freedom of expression. He has a right to make an ass of himself. I have a right to point this out. You have no right to suggest that his rights are valid and mine are not.
true. but generals and presidents are weighing in opposing, when they should be favoring. in this context it isnt. it is an anti free expression thing only when it is done by authorities. authorities are not supposed to take stances on which books they do or do not like. private citizens are. completely different context here. this is true of every human on earth. say something specific or you have made no point. i believe islam is a bad influence on the world. i have evidence to back this up, long lists of innocent dead folks, for one. if you love islam, good for you. maybe you can find an imam or whatever to hold hands with. i think islam is a destructive and horrible force in the world and i approve when other people agree and express this.
I believe that Islam is a good influence in the world and those who fall short of its ideals are the ones you are using to judge Islam. That's ignorant and prejudiced of you in my opinion.
there are no "ideals" in these holy books. they say everything/nothing. they can be interpreted to mean anything and everything. thats one reason why they are so dangerous. the people "fall short" are no less muslim than whoever you approve of. you dont make the rules. with religions, nobody/everybody does. thats why these books should be protested. and burning is a good protest, particularly when it stirs up trouble, reminds us how violent muslims are. yunno, if this guy hated disco music, and decided to burn disco records, we wouldnt know about it, it wouldnt make the news. but it would be exactly the same. the only difference is that disco artists are not going to cut your damn head off if you offend them, muslims love doing that. and for that they deserve infinite disrespect.
They are on an upswing for sure, but all religions have fanatical murdering bastards. Catholic and Protestant terrorists in Ireland are an obvious example of Christian extremists, you don't have to go back to the Crusades. Even the Mormons have had extremists who massacred other religious groups. It is important to distinguish between the two. It is possible to go after the islamic extremists and kill them. It is impossible and futile to wage war on 1.5 billion muslims.
