Here, enjoy this lovely quote from the Koran. You sound like you could use some peace and comfort:

“By the morning hours and by the night when it is stillest, thy Lord hath not forsaken thee nor doth He hate thee. . . . Did He not find thee an orphan and protect (thee)? Did He not find thee wandering and direct (thee)? Did He not find thee destitute and enrich (thee)? Therefore the orphan oppress not, therefore the beggar drive not away, therefore of the bounty of thy Lord be thy discourse.”

no surprise that DKL misses the point. Ironic coming from a man who believes in a religion full of symbolism. Duh, of course, books are cheap and millions more copies made to replace the burned ones. The point is someone actually thinks those books are sacred, thus the target is the sacred nature of the other person’s belief. An equivalent would be if someone were to desecrate our LDS temples in some way. Whatever it is we find sacred, that is to be attacked. Should Muslims not consider the Qur’an sacred? That’s not up for Christians to decide.

I had a seminary teacher who shot Books of Mormon. This was done in conjunction with a story of a bullet stopping mid-way through an LDS soldier’s Book of Mormon in Vietnam. IIRC, the bullet stopped on a verse about the Lord preserving you. The teacher’s point was that bullets normally pass through Book of Mormons.(1)

That teacher was, even by the standards of men who choose to make inculcation of Mormon teachings a full-time profession, an odd guy. But I give him credit–to my high-school eyes there was something cool about him bringing in Books of Mormon with bullet holes shot through them. If shooting Korans encourages young Muslims to take a deeper interest in their faith, and based on the shooting of my own religion’s holiest book it will, isn’t that something believing people everywhere can get behind?(2)(3)

(1) If I was was sent to a war and was thinking about what book to bring on the off chance it would stop a bullet, I wouldn’t opt for the Book of Mormon or the Koran. Maybe Solzhenitsyn’s The Red Wheel.

(2) I’m hoping that cable news channels will immediately commence reporting the story of the man who wants to shoot a Koran so I can finally convince my wife to allow me to grow those muttonchops I’ve been wanting.

(3) My wife is always slightly appalled when a Mormon involved in, say, an NGO that works with the United Nations, bears testimony about how much we have in common with Muslim countries because they also value “strong families”. If the people with whom we make common cause in promoting shared values run the most backward, repressive regimes in the world, we need to rethink our strategy.

Well, how many Americans are going to die for this post, I ask you?

#7,

Who is “we”?

SilverRain, all religions in America and in the west are fodder for scorn, ridicule, and a variety of cheap laughs — every last one of them: Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, you name it. That’s what it means to be a religion in a free country. That’s what happens when you participate in post-enlightenment, western culture. I view Islam as an equal to these other great religions. I believe with all my heart that Islam is a legitimate religion with a legitimate place in American and in western life. I’m seeking to include them within the scope of a post-enlightenment, western cultural framework.

I feel that others who demand that we subjugate ourselves to the taboos of others are advancing a bigoted and insulting point of view, one in which Muslims are excluded from the sorts of activities that other religions participate in regularly, one in which they are derided as delicate creatures uniquely in need of careful handling. If muslims want a seat at the table as a credible international religion of peace, then they need to step up to the plate. I think that they’re up to it.

Anytime someone is killed in the name of “honor” the world is lessened a lot, and God cries.

Chris (4)

That made me laugh.

11. Decoupage to the wall of the urinal for use as a target.

arJ—So because some extremist does something wrong, we are justified in also doing something wrong.

Not that it’s likely to matter to either of you, but I’m rather disappointed in you and DKL, among others, people I otherwise respect.

Chris and Jota: This are awesome ways to have fun destroying the Koran! Great job!

annegb, in answer to your earlier question of how many Americans are going to die because of this post: nine

arj, right on!

Mathew, that’s an awesome story, and it serves to illustrate how outmoded and backward the taboo on book burning really is.

Cynthia, thanks for sharing that. Over the past few years, I’ve been shown many passages of the Koran that promote values and outlooks that we cherish in our own Judeo-Christian outlook. Now let’s start burning!

The fact that Dan and SiverRain don’t find this post funny is shocking. I’m disappointed in them, among others, people I otherwise… Oh, never mind. They never have any sense of humor.

An equivalent would be if someone were to desecrate our LDS temples in some way

On the contrary, that is vandalism of the private property of others. A closer equivalent would be burning temple garments (or clothes made to look like temple garments) in public. That would make a lot of members mad, hopefully not to the point of violence however.

you could put bacon in between the pages then wrap some duct tape around it and give it to this pit bull I know named oop. I’ve seen that dog chew threw an inflated tire. Kidding… I get the point.

I think it’s funny that commenter no. 3 had nothing to say on the “what would you do if someone burned a book of mormon” post. Maybe he feels that muslims can’t be held to the same high standard of “You don’t kill random people because some random person burned your book” as the rest of are?

You could go to http://quran.com/ and many similar sites, cut and paste the Koran into a word document and then delete it. Or close your browser window. Or navigate away from the page to another site of your choice.

Or you could save it onto your desktop and then move it to the recycle bin. If someone was offended you could restore it to your desktop.

This raises, of course, issues about what to do once you want to dispose of your computer. Would it be disrespectful to junk your hard drive? If the Koran is stored digitally but there is no means of accessing the file, has it been destroyed?

I have an average sense of humor. It just doesn’t extend to this.

I can’t help but think how I feel when someone mocks temple garments or spray paints the temple.

Not to mention the sheer stupidity of escalating the hard feelings. Not a way to avoid war, and certainly not a mature reaction.

I find it interesting that you can’t tell the difference between respecting another person’s beliefs and being afraid to offend. There is a distinct difference in maturity level. And you can talk all you like about mockery being necessary to modern society. Perhaps that is why I’m not too fond of modern “pluralistic” society. We’re all just a bunch of unruly children running around, with little sense of respect or responsibility.

Silverrain,

I’m not advocating that anyone burn anything. But I think that DKL makes an excellent point. In our society you have to be able to tolerate extreme disrespect in order to guarantee the freedoms that we value. By “tolerate” I mean that words and other acts of speech such as cartoons, book burnings, etc. should be met with more speech, not violence.

Muslims might be justifiably heartbroken and incensed when someone burns a Quran, but the problem is that a small percentage of Muslims think that the proper reaction is to kill the book burner. The point isn’t to endorse book-burning. It is to point out the sort of things we have to be able to tolerate in order to have our rights.

Muslims seem to be very able to burn the symbols that others hold sacred. They need to leave vengeance to God if they want to be taken seriously as members of a pluralistic society.

“They need to leave vengeance to God if they want to be taken seriously as members of a pluralistic society.”
Well, I think that might be an issue for some who believe they need to practice their religion by exacting vengeance in behalf of God.

This isn’t tolerating someone mocking our beliefs, it is mocking another person’s.

It is the equivalent of inventing new and improved ways for bullies to hit kids on the playground, telling them to do it more because hitting them is only making them stronger, they’re going to have to get used to being bullied in life, and that it plays a valuable part in our modern society, so they might as well suck it up. Oh, and adding on that there is nothing wrong with doing so because some picked-on kids go home, get their daddy’s shotguns and go on shooting sprees at school.

Pathetic.

SilverRain,

The bullies are the people that threaten to kill you for acts that are perfectly legal.

Personally I have no desire to burn a Quran and would discourage others from doing so. In my mind there are much better (or at least more productive) ways to express displeasure with certain elements of Islam. But you have to admit that this sort of thing gets their attention in the way a letter to the editor never would.

The fact that burning a Quran is defacto verboten in the USA because people are going to kill people over it is more deplorable than any stupid plan to burn the Quran.

Likewise the idea that an Islamic cultural center in lower Manhattan is unacceptable is more deplorable than actually building such a center.

“Likewise the idea that an Islamic cultural center in lower Manhattan is unacceptable is more deplorable than actually building such a center.”

Really? It’s more deplorable to suggest that it be built somewhere else than it is to build it?

The center is 348 feet from where human remains landed after people in the name of Islam killed thousands of people.

Even though most Muslims don’t share the beliefs of those madmen who crashed the planes into the towers, it is highly insensitive to propose erecting a mosque there (especially given Islam’s historical tendency to erect edifices to commemorate ‘victories’).

While not a perfect analogy, it would be like us deciding to build a temple on the site of the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Mathew,

ARJ had said that it was more deplorable to say they shouldn’t build a mosque near Ground Zero than it was to actually build the mosque.

I disagreed.

I didn’t compare building the mosque to burning a Koran.

I also said nothing about legal rights. If someone asked, do they have a legal right to build the mosque there, I would answer “yes.” If someone asked, should they build the mosque there, I would answer “no.”

SilverRain, you are still missing the point, I think. Burning a book is not an act of bullying, it is an act of speech that is perfectly legitimate and protected under our laws. Just because overly-sensitive, hyper-religious muslims say that it is a desecration does not make it so. You are buying into their point of view and perpetuating their anti-western, pro-violence attitudes when you suggest otherwise. That is not ultimately in the interest of our society or theirs.

This is an example of truly mainstream Islam being, in ARJ’s view, “deplorable.”

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Mischief+Manhattan/3370303/story.html

They call the mosque “fitna” or mischief making.

Yessssss! My work here is complete!

MCQ—I think you are the one missing the point. Try substituting LDS for Muslim in your thoughts and maybe you’ll start to get a clue.

You are conflating a sympathy for moderate Muslims whose sacred objects are being desecrated because of the immature and pointless reaction towards acts of extremists with a sympathy for terrorism and violence. You and others not being able to see the difference is precisely what disappoints me.

And my point is why are we the ones condoning the dealing out of licks in the first place? Those who dealt the violence didn’t do so because some random Christian burned the Quran, which is obvious by the chronologic order of it. Protesting against Muslim extremists should be done by protesting against the violence, not the religion. All that is is turning around and kicking puppies because a dog bit you.

I’m seriously astounded that none of you can distinguish this line. I’m left to think it’s either a lack of maturity or a lack of objective thinking. Neither one of which I previously thought any of you lacked. I’m not trying to insult by saying that, I’m just at a loss for understanding. By conflating the violence with the religion, we are playing right into their hands by reinforcing the “us vs. them” mentality. It shouldn’t be Christians vs. Muslims, it should be civilized people vs. the violent. Burning a sacred object is an act of passive violence. By symbolism, it indicates that we would happily do the same to the people who hold it sacred.

My goodness, what a sandbox this world is!

I think the reality is that since the 700′s when Islam burst out of the desert and sacked Christian civilizations in the Middle East Christianity and Islam have been at loggerheads. Our latest conflict with Islamic extremists is just another episode in that 1300 year old struggle. Even moderate Muslims would like to see Western Governments replaced by a worldwide caliphate that imposes Sharia law on its subjects even if they oppose violent means to accomplish this goal. They do not support the methods of the violent extremist but they do support the larger goals of the extremist.

DKL—I certainly hope that you never have to live in a situation where someone is destroying something you hold dear for no fault of your own, and everyone around you tells you to just deal with it. It is not a pleasant experience, I can tell you.

You insist on putting words into my mouth. I never said it should be illegal to desecrate religious symbols, I said it was a stupid, ridiculous and immature thing to do. You’re talking about one thing, and refusing to listen when I point out another aspect of it because, I imagine, you don’t want to admit that you’re doing the wrong thing. Part of freedom is responsibility. Just because you are free to do something, doesn’t mean you should. If you can’t understand that, than you are little more than a child who can’t understand social concepts like decency and courtesy. But you’re in ample company. I’m beginning to get the feeling that most of America is with you.

aRJ—Do you read anything? I never mentioned Nazis. That was someone else. You also insist on putting words into my mouth. I never said violence was a good idea. I said that meeting violence with an act that hurts those who have nothing to do with it is an ill-conceived, childish reaction that accomplishes nothing but to foment further ill will.

But I’m getting the feeling that I’m talking to a couple of brick walls.

Silver Rain,

I apologize. I misremembered who first mentioned Nazis early this morning when I was writing my comment several hours after I read it. I should have been more careful. I am very sorry for the confusion and I do read, just not so well sometimes.

Part of freedom is that you can do something, without threat of violence, not that you should. If you defacto cannot do something without a threat of violence then you are not free to do it. So who should be the arbiter of what I can say without getting killed? What beliefs are strange enough that you’d be willing to subject them to mockery?

The test of whether you actually believe in freedom is when someone says something you find offensive. Do you stick up for their right to say that or do you side with those that want to shut them up?

By, say, deleting their comments and threatening to block their participation at all blogs under your influence? Hmm?

SilverRain, in order for religions with non-mainstream values to be accepted in the USA, they need to sit passively by while everybody else shreds their most sacred beliefs — like a comedy roast, only without the laughs. The US Senate made it its official business to do exactly this with Mormonism for many years (it was called “The Reed Smoot Hearings”), and if it hadn’t been for that, our church would probably still practice polygamy. By forcing the Mormon church to passively endure that spotlight of attention and disrespect, it converted Mormonism into a religion capable of mainstream acceptance — Mormons had experienced violence, and that hadn’t changed them, but non-violent incursions into their practices was just the thing. If everyone would have sat back and pretended to be tolerant, the LDS church would still be a marginal church with marginal beliefs isolated in a remote geographical area.

It is both MORAL and WISE to treat Muslims the same way. We SHOULD do it.

The fact that you compare my burning a printed artifact that I own to sexual assault shows how unhinged you are by this whole discussion.

Peter, you’re an exception to all the rules. Be flattered.

SilverRain, perhaps I misread you, if so I apologize, but you did seem to be getting overwrought.

You keep saying things like we would feel differently if the shoe was on the other foot, so we should be sympathetic to the muslims who are offended by the idea of their sacred scriptures being desecrated.

But the shoe is on the other foot, and has been for a long time. Our reaction to desecration of our sacred images has been on display for years and is a matter of public record. We have slowly come to have a mature attitude about it and have hardly slaughtered anyone from Missouri in quite a while. Muslims need to start this process too, and they won’t start it if people keep protecting them and buying into their victim mentality. You think we’re the ones being immature but accepting protected speech as protected speech is the mature attitude. Treating it as a call to defend God is not.

Unless of course the speech comes from Peter. He deserves to be drawn, quartered and dragged through the streets as a warning to all jackasses.

DKL,

It was me that Peter was talking about. I AM OZ, THE ALL POWERFUL!!!

BTW, DKL, I forgot to ask, would you mind deleting all of Peter’s comments? He’s a total peckerhead. Thanks.

MCQ is on to something. Peter LLC has a history of being an asswipe and then trying to get revenge on people who call him out for it. He was quasi stalking me a little while back over it too.

Even moderate Muslims would like to see Western Governments replaced by a worldwide caliphate that imposes Sharia law on its subjects even if they oppose violent means to accomplish this goal. They do not support the methods of the violent extremist but they do support the larger goals of the extremist.

We must know different Muslims. The moderate Muslims I work with don’t wish for a worldwide caliphate. Maybe they are liberal Muslims…

The Islamic fanatics who are enraged that some yay-hoo “threatened” to burn the Koran are not overly sensitive. They know excactly what they are doing. The “over-reaction” game is merely a strategy of intimidation to get their way. It’s intentional and planned. (Someone strung together some quotes from Imam Rauf from various times and stages of the mosque plan, and it shows that he knew what was going to happen and that he purposely manipulated things. From his “I didn’t know this backlash was going to happen” to “We can’t cancel now, or the Muslims in other parts of the world will take offense.” He knew _exactly_ what he was doing.)

And when any politicians or media pundits in the west cower to them, the “crazies” privately snicker and high-five each other.

This “get all enraged in order to intimidate the opposition and get your way” is generally part and parcel of the middle-east culture and mind-set. It is part of what has been behind the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

_OF COURSE_ they rage, it’s all part of the plan, and they’ll use whatever “excuse” they can.

Mark D.: If I understand correctly, polygamy was practiced openly in Mexico in the Colonias (and maybe Canada?) up until the 2nd Manifesto. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.