It's the big story! Mutton chopped Minister Burns Books! Read all about it! Film at 9/11!
Shameful. The entire ridiculous affair of the media falling all over itself to give credence to some two-bit xenophobe posing as a preacher is just shameful. I have listened to the political hacks hurrying to boost their ratings by out-bigoting each other with falsehood after falsehood. I have seen has-been politicians who (in their minds) are would-be-Presidents make stuff up left and right to inflame the irrational populace. And I have seen seemingly adult Americans cowering in the corner over the possibility that some Muslim might build a dang basketball court a few blocks from the construction site formerly known as the World Trade Towers.
Today I came across an article written by Jason Linkins. You can read the entire article here. I highly recommend everyone read it in full, then Tweet it, Facebook it, plaster it on the inside walls of bus stop enclosures, do whatever you have to do to smarten up the people in this country. And definitely drop off a few thousand copies to every media outlet within a 50 mile radius of you.
Linkins pulls no punches. He refers to Terry Jones as the "leader of a microscopic cult of idiots" who has been "pimping an 18th-century brand of community terrorism." He goes after the media as well, noting:
As soon as the media saw themselves a shiny shiny shining thing shining shinily in New York City, they pounced! How perfect! Something for us to talk about during the slow-news summer!
To be honest, I'm embarrassed by the cowardice and falsity by our country. As are others. Ted Koppel wrote a piece in the Washington Post saying that we need to stop playing into Osama bin Laden's hands. We have somehow let the inmates get the keys to the asylum and are running around turning reality upside down.
And the media plays it up for ratings and profit.
It disgusts me. And it should disgust all of us. It has to stop. It's time for Americans to start acting like intelligent adults again and not like spoiled two-year olds. It's time for us to start taking responsibility for being truthful in our discourse. And it's time for the media to regain its journalistic integrity instead of being the first clown in the mini car in ring three.
It's time to grow up.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 164
It's time for us to grow up.
It more like being shoved down our throats. I'm pretty much sick of it all at this point.
Can you say just another Faux News Event, from the 38 million dollar corporate sponsor man, himself.
We have been Orson Wells!!! War of the Worlded!!!
Ha, HA, HAA...
Guess I missed this. Somehow I'm not surprised. Wonder if Limbaugh was in on the scam from the beginning.
Some of us are tired of it, but unfortunately the rest are still taking it in.
But we waste our time on some second-rate throw-back to another century who wants to singe a few holy books in the name of "peace."
We really have to get past all this silliness, because it stopped being merely silly long ago. It has become dangerous to our country and the world.
And yet here we are, giving it attention ourselves. You even decided it was worthy of extra attention by making it your "first post specifically tailored for SEO".
And it just happens to be the first post I made after someone sent me some SEO tips.
We can't say it's getting too much attention without giving it attention, Matthew.
"And it just happens to be the first post I made after someone sent me some SEO tips. "
So you're talking about it to get attention and to make money. How is that different from what the media's doing?
Thank you, Captain Obvious.
So you're talking about it to get attention and to make money. How is that different from what the media's doing?
One reason I’m on Gather, is because I enjoy it. Another reason, is to earn some extra money. That SEO stuff has nothing to do with the Koran burning- it's just a coincidence, I was going to do it anyway after I read up on it.
I don’t know why you enjoy meaningless, wasteful nitpicking, Wil.
Otherwise, spot on. The media will continue to suck up this drivel.
America isn't getting any worse (though sometimes I wonder how far we've come -or fallen- in genetics), we're simply popularizing and glorifying our most disgusting elements.
The real question is the time.
But then, when the real world has gone crazy, is there much point to attempting to bring rationality to a virtual world?
Maybe because I don't see it as meaningless wasteful nitpicking, Matthew. Whatever the reasons you're "on Gather", the reality is that you're creating content for Gather, Inc. which is a media company. So when you give attention to a particular issue, you're adding to the media attention because, in your own little tiny way, you and all the rest of us here are the media.
So when you write an article about the Koran burning nutbag, how is what you're doing different from what those other people in the media are doing?
By the same token, Wil, this article I have written is about that nutbag. Or more accurately, about the media frenzy to give the nutbag a forum. We really need some self-reflection in this country about what we consider to be "newsworthy."
And by "we" I don't mean Fox and MSNBC and CNN and the blog of the month club. I mean us. The viewing/reading public. The same public that demands sensationalism from our media, demands intellectual indolence from ourselves, and demands that our elected officials pander to the most paranoid and xenophobic elements in our society.
That's where I would like to focus. How do we save ourselves from ourselves?
And I have contributed to the discussion, which in a small way makes me part of the media frenzy, too.
"And by "we" I don't mean Fox and MSNBC and CNN and the blog of the month club. I mean us. The viewing/reading public."
But that's the thing, David. When we're discussing it on a website owned by a media company, and being rewarded by that media company for doing so, then I think we're not just "us". We're also "them".
"How do we save ourselves from ourselves?"
I tend to find comfort from knowing that we've been doing all these things for tens of thousands of years, we're still here, and in many ways we're doing remarkably well.
True. Though we are talking about how the media frenzy, not the preacher burning books. Without the media frenzy the preacher could have burned his one copy of the Qur'an and nobody would have cared.
But that's the thing, David. When we're discussing it on a website owned by a media company, and being rewarded by that media company for doing so, then I think we're not just "us". We're also "them".
True again. By saying "us" I included "us" in "them." Though I'm not sure the piddling amount Gather pays for less than a couple hundred hits is quite the same incentive for posting here compared to the larger media. But perhaps others get more page views than I do.
I tend to find comfort from knowing that we've been doing all these things for tens of thousands of years, we're still here, and in many ways we're doing remarkably well.
I'll have to think about that one a little more. Certainly we are still here, and barring some completely idiotic global nuclear holocaust (or major asteroid strike), we'll likely be here for a while still. But in other sense we've enjoyed the front end of the tragedy of the commons. What will the world look like for our grandchildren?
We are. But Matthews SEO-enhanced post wasn't about the media frenzy. It was about the preacher. I think that makes his article more directly part of the media frenzy than your article.
"Though I'm not sure the piddling amount Gather pays for less than a couple hundred hits is quite the same incentive for posting here compared to the larger media. But perhaps others get more page views than I do."
LOL, I hear ya, David. But when you look at some of the things people will do for those piddling amounts of points, I think it makes it easier to understand why the people involved with those larger media companies behave the way they do. A quick look at some other Gather posts suggests to me that posts about Kate Gosselin, Hulk Hogan, Angelina Jolie, or a Jonas Brother are better for getting those page views.
"But in other sense we've enjoyed the front end of the tragedy of the commons. What will the world look like for our grandchildren?"
I think about that a lot, too. In some ways I think it'll be better than the world left by my grandparents (I was born in 1968), and in some ways it'll be worse, but in terms of the big picture, I'm cautiously optimistic.
Exactly.
President Bush essentially said "Okay, we got punched and now we are gonna punch that kid back, and then we're going to go back to our normal lives". And we DID punch back, but we never went back to normal, thanks to the opportunistic fear-mongering by the politicians and the media.
In the Ted Koppel piece I linked he reminds us that Bush did just about the right thing by routing the Taliban and bin Laden right after 9/11. And then he went and played politics and tried to one-up daddy (with a lot of encouragement from Dad's sidekick Cheney and his boy wonder Wolfowitz) by taking out Saddam. And we've been racing downhill ever since then.
I AM an American and I intend to live like one!
Exactly. With integrity and dignity.
*applause*
Nihilistic infantile idiots.
Giving this guy a chance to be on national news is a great example of news outlets running scared. Once one breaks the story they all have to cover it or risk losing viewers. Every decent sized city has street corner preachers or free range schizophrenics who are as influential as Jones. They say totally insane things. They don't get on national news.
Unfortunately, that captures the crux all too accurately, Nippy. It's all about sensationalism and one-upsmanship. And we are the reason. We beg for it so we don't have to take responsibility for our actions. I'm tired of it. We all need to grow up.
Of course they don't. It doesn't fit into their comfortable fake narratives.
Exactly. And way too many people have chosen to shirk all responsibility to think rationally so they can cry in the streets in fear.
And the media has shirked its responsibility to ignore the nut jobs, get their facts straight, and report with integrity.
But, I think the media was looking for a story that was a reaction to the mosque story in New York, also overblown.
All because they know we are lapping it up.
As Pogo observed: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
I think they already have taken it over.
Consider that the USA has 5% of the World's population, 20% of the income, and 50% of the military spending, and maybe you can work out which one Islam sees Uncle Sam as.
Islam is a religion practiced by millions of people worldwide. In fact, it is the fastest growing religion in the United States. Islam, i.e., the religion, doesn't "see" the US as anything because Islam, i.e., the religion, isn't the problem. The problem is that there are some extremists that have hijacked Islam just as there are extremists that have hijacked Christianity and Judaism so they can create mayhem in God's name. The problem is that there are countries where their leaders treat most of the population like crap and then blame the US for all of their ills. The problem is that there are nut jobs burning Qur'ans in Florida and the media makes it into a worldwide recruiting tool for the nut jobs in other countries who happen to be Muslim.
And the problem is that we, the people, are letting this happen.
And here we are 9 years later still recruiting terrorists for bin Laden. We've become one of those guys walking the sidewalks wearing a sandwich board begging for nut jobs.
And perhaps most insidious, those who are stoking the flames of the irrational and the paranoid to further their own political ambitions.
If it wasn't the "Islamic fascists," we would simply invent another bogeyman to wrap our irrational fears around.
This is on us.
The problem with the Muslim issue (Koran burning furor, WTC area Mosque hysterics, etc.) is the linking some people do between terrorists who are Muslim and the entire Muslim population, worldwide. This gets more distorted because our own government has used "war on terror" as a way to get public support for policy, through propaganda. But, just focusing on cause of terrorist events: When people in these countries feel like they are being treated "like crap" and blame the US, some of that is justified. In some of these countries they see that the US massively funds the dictators who, oppressively (in their view) control them and the US also has our military bases there. They see us meddling in their affairs, sometime to the point of our outright removal of democratically elected leaders who are replaced with dictators who we want in there; like the Shah of Iran. And, there's the issue (complicated, yes) of our extraordinary massive funding of Israel and supply of ultra high-tech American weaponry which they use (in the view of many in the region) to perpetually beat up the nearly helpless Palestinians.
This is why the "terrorists" say they have done terrorist actions. It's not because we have the wrong religion, like a lot of the Burning Koran idiots think, it's not because they "hate our freedom" as former president Bush said. It's because of our policy, and because of that policy, some people in those countries where we meddle and support dictators, who oppress them, have some legitimate (you decide the degree) complaints.
I actually wrote an article on this subject nearly two years ago called "The Future of the War on Terror" in which I advocated dropping the moniker because it was doing more harm than good.
When people in these countries feel like they are being treated "like crap" and blame the US, some of that is justified.
Agreed. And I've had enough experience overseas to see it first hand. The combination of justified and unjustified distrust of the US is amplified by the leadership of at least some countries to distract from their own inability to deal with domestic issues. Like it or not, what we do affects how people see us, and what they do affects how we see them. Now if we could only see reality and not our distorted perceptions of reality we would have a better chance at finding a path forward.
This is why the "terrorists" say they have done terrorist actions. It's not because we have the wrong religion, like a lot of the Burning Koran idiots think, it's not because they "hate our freedom" as former president Bush said. It's because of our policy, and because of that policy, some people in those countries where we meddle and support dictators, who oppress them, have some legitimate (you decide the degree) complaints.
Well said.
Excellent statement. This is what the dialogue should be. If the public would focus on this, all the money and hysterics (including idiotic stunts like burning Korans) and issues that go into the problem of us vs. them would be tremendously reduced. And, we could at least have some recognition of what the problems are, instead of flying blind the way we now are.
We've become a pathetic country, and the ones who scream the loudest are the ones that are the most afraid of every shadow.
I lost a cousin a couple years ago. He had both Parkinsons and Cancer. He once told me about a turning point in his experience; when his wife told him: "You can't make your life just about this."
I agree they do what we train them to do. This is on us. We should be ashamed of ourselves.
Yes, so much for the left leaning media. Fox and Tea Party folk must dream these things up in a back room, and everyone falls into line.
Jones, far from the sharpest tool in the shed, is now going to be approached by less stupid but equally malevolent right wing figures who will hand him scripts. Yeay, we could stretch this thing out until election day if we are creative!
Turn off the cameras.
Have we sunk so low that we are willing - and eager - to destroy individuals and our country for the sake of a few extra bucks in the hands of people who already can't count how much they have?
That is sad.
And in that sense, I think that while the "leader of a microscopic cult of idiots" certainly should not have been given all the attention he's received, I also think that this Koran burning thing is just a tiny piece of a much larger picture that does need some attention.
That larger picture, in my mind at least, includes the reactions to the 9/11 attacks, and the continued irrational fear of terrorism. And the whole anti-Islamic thing. And the problems religious extremists (of all flavors) can pose for secular societies such as the U.S.
These are important issues that the American public needs to deal with, but I suppose doing it in a reasonable manner doesn't grab the attention (and the $$$ associated with that attention) like focusing on the Shiny Shiny Shining Thing of the Week will. Nutbag preachers, Osama bin Laden brandishing an AK-47, and teabaggers with misspelled signs are easier to talk about in 30 sec. news segments and 140-character tweets, so that's what they go with.
Why? Because we are overwhelmed by our own affluence. We can't handle the overload of information. We can't make a decision because it would involve actually thinking. It's so much easier just to reinforce your fears by listening only to those voices in your head that tell you everyone in the world is out to get you, which of course makes you somehow above everyone else in the world.
So we cower under the bed telling ourselves in our minds we are the Lord incarnate while we tell the world we are pathetic and scared little zombies.
As best I can tell if he wants to he has the same right to the book as those who burn the American flag. If he can do one why should I care if he burns the other? I don;t care who he is or anything more about him.
As best I can tell he isn't trying to make reading the book illegal, he is not trying to start a movement to have the book remove from book shelves, so why should I care?
We shouldn't. And that is the point. He is one nut job looking for publicity.
The problem is that we have given it to him.
Which is what this article is about.
It we should'nt, then why are we?
Why do you consider him a "nut job", as best I can tell he is doing nothing different than anyone who wants media attention?
If this article is about and what we shouldn't have done then what should we do when the next one pops up, because they do every day?
We should ignore it and talk about something important.
"What IS the problem is that his action would, without a doubt, have a serious impact on a lot of other Americans and possibly have a big impact on this country itself." I reist this for a cuole of reasons, it we react because of the protentila harm that might be done US and others then when or where to we stop. Where is the line that we will not cross. If it legal here then why should we succumb to the intimidation from elsewhere.
We have already place our forces in harms way, if you think there risk is heighten because this book burning would cause others to do more heinous things theen you should talk to some who have already experinced what can be done.
My best guess is that those who claim the act of burning a book will cause them to something they haven't already wanted to do are lying. They have already had all the excuses they need.
Aside from this article being written by David K. I have avoid anything on this since I first I heard it aired, no matter the source (my clicker is in my hand which ever news show is on).
We can't and as mcuh as I may dislike the editors choose to report on we should not try to stymie press (save from naitonal security or some such).
What if we talked about a rating system for the articles the media does present so the public can at least have a means to voice their disappointment?
Nobody is suggesting we do that.
What if we talked about a rating system for the articles the media does present so the public can at least have a means to voice their disappointment?
We already have a rating system. It's the one that shows that the public tunes into the ridiculous and sensationalist and ignores the real news. The media gives us what we want, which is largely reinforcement of our respective ideological beliefs and entertainment value.
This is on us. We should be ashamed.
I am not sold on the idea that we get what we want. I tend to think it has to do with the habits that are created and there is no clear path into better habits.
If we had a system that describe different levels of rating that people could actually vote on, it would give media a model of that good informatio was, it would give people an outlet for their frustrations and an opportuity for influence, it would create points fro discussion across geographies.
As best I can tell, the current interest is measured by the handful of people that Neilsen uses for rating, pretty much all the media watches each other and when one has something different the rest wucikly follow. The only sligth exception to the later is FOXNews, it seems they are doing something that puts them on a different path from the pack, but they follow the same stories.
I accept no shame in what is in the media, they make that choice, all I can do is watch/read or do something else. And I have no shame in what I watch. I learned to read with comic books because it was entertaining, from those lessons I learned science, math, and to continue to read both fiction and no-fiction even today.
It is what we do and on some situation what we don;t do, not what others do that creates our shame.
When someone has decided to do harm to others there is nothing that can heighten that decision or changes the degree of harm (killing is killing).
Those that our troops are battling (suicide attackers) are committed to the most evil so there is nothing said or done that can make it worse.
My point is that trying to appease them by putting a Mosque in Manhattan or stopping a guy from burning a book is at best a waste effort or worse it shows a weakness, demoralize suporting our troops, and encourage the media to start seeming even lesser events to elevate to a global issue.
And I would give that station my business.
There were excesses in the past, of course. No one is suggesting that everyone was an Edward R. Murrow or Walter Cronkite. But there were professional journalists and fact checkers and editors. Now there are screenwriters who put the script up on a teleprompter for them to read. Nighttime has been taken over by the entertainment divisions. Can you imagine anyone taking Glenn Beck seriously as a news source? Of course not. He's a clown. And he makes Fox News tons of money (as he does for himself). It has nothing to do with news, which he has even admitted, and still there are people who hang on his every word.
That is the scary part.
I used to think that too. Lately I'm not so sure.
I would not rule out that this is such a "rope a dope" operation. Remember in Iraq, we were catching hell in the insurgency and then radicals from all over the world came to Iraq. It got them fighting amongst each other, and brought a lot of them out in the open.
Our strategy, remember, is to fight them there so we do not have to fight them here. War and violence is bad, but as a place to fight terrorists, Iraq is much superior to Afgahanistan. It is flat and desert, there are few places to hide.
I think anyone who is inflamed enough by the burning of a book is radical enough already to at some point pick up arms against us. I think it not be a bad idea to get them all trying to act at the same time when we can expect them and see them and act against them rather than drag this on for many years.
Just a thought.
Yes, Bruce. If you can call this a "war," the "war on terror" comes down to an "enemy" that has no army, navy or air force, no set headquarters, or nation. So we can't overrun their position and run our flag up the flagpole on top of their presidential palace. Terror is a tactic, and when it's used it's a criminal action. Criminal authorities are the agencies that should be dealing with terrorist acts. The idea that we are using massive military numbers and force with high-tech weaponry to fight such a liquid adversary is absolutely absurd. We spend tens of billions on submarines to fight terrorists without a navy and hundreds of billions on the latest fighter jet, that can what? Outmaneuver the fighter jets flown by terrorists?
Uh... no. It's an excuse for pumping cash into the defense industry that has the politicians in it's pocket. They love the idea of all Muslims being the personification of evil, as believed by the Koran Burning advocates. It guarantees perpetual war.
If you want to talk about the war on terror, there is a lot to criticize.
In terms of terrorism, the US is a terrorist country too. In my opinion in the last 100 years we had slavery in this country, and people seem to forget what the US is like. And it's not just the US, every country is a system, and obviously the majority of people live under systems that are flawed and rigged and exploit or allow the exploitation of people.
So the terminology problem of what to call the system, how to characterize it, how to determine who are the rulers or it is bad enough in the present, but then to figure out the trajectory of that system is another issue.
No one has built a submarine to fight terrorists, so your argument, even thought I can tell what you mean and where you are going with it, is absurd too.
The problem is that each in their own way, these abusive toxic societies, and I include the US in that, are too complex for people to understand - BY DESIGN. So, the biggest problem I see with the US is that we are breaking people's psychic integrity by blasting noise and chaos at them, and then telling them that like is about working for the lowest wage and buying crap. Our problem in the US is severe and close.
The problem with the Islamic states is slightly different, but even more severe and threatening, because they have the antagonism and war built into their society, as well as terror and abuse. It was not that long ago that the US has abuse and terror just as bad.
So in trying to look at all of this in some kind of logical order, it is so easy to make the statement like it's all about pumping cash into the defense industry for endless war, but I think that is not helpful. The US is not perfect but we are certainly much more optimal in fighting this war than we were in the debacle of Viet Nam.
I do agree with you that the financial corruption, and the economic mess this has made of our economy is a huge problem that was avoidable and deliberately done. The problem is how does the average American see this and know what to do and what is good for them?
I think that the world cannot exist with Islam. Do you think the European Union should accept Turkey into it if Turkey votes and Islamist President in and becomes Islamic? Do you think that can work? As the world gets smaller and power, bombs, guns, etc falls into more hands, how the hell do you think this works itself out without conflict? The most violence is in and of these very countries, to their own people and to others.
I think it is right that US should confront Poltical Islam. I do not think we have done anything in that regard right, but we also have not done everything wrong, and we have done a little good. It possible to me that Iraq could turn out a plus and decade after decade these countries need to be civilized. It costs money and lives. I suppose we disagree on that.
Overriding all of this is fixing our own country first though, in my opinion. We are as much occupied by the forces of the military industrial complex as the Iraqis. Maybe even more so .... no on in the US is trying to make sure all Americans benefit from our oil wealth like they are in Iraq in order to build a stable country. In fact, just the opposite ... the very mention of anything like that is called communist, and yet it is very just and fair that everyone born should have some stake in the world - at least in my opinion.
Yes, the US is a terrorist country. Far more people have been killed by US terrorism than by any other entity I can think of; terrorism being defined as violent events executed to produce fear in order to bring about a political result. The problem is, most Americans are unaware of these events and therefore think they’re in the unique positions of being innocent victims.
When I talk of building submarines to fight terrorism, I’m referring to the tens of billions of dollars we’ve spent over the last few years to build new submarines. These projects were pushed through by Joe Lieberman, who happens to be from CT where the submarines are built. We already have twelve naval fleets in network around the globe and are well above having any nations being able to come close to that. Since the cold war ended, who are our rivals that cause a need for building these subs? Our “enemy” now as been proclaimed to be “terrorism,” and terrorists don’t have any navy that would necessitate our building of more advanced subs. So who is our rival? China? We could reduce our military budget by 75% and still be spending twice what they do. Same issue with airplanes. We spent 300 billion on new fighters from Lockheed Martin after 9/11. Back during the cold war, the argument was that we needed fighters that were 5 mph faster than MIGs to compete. But who are we competing with now that we need to spend 300 billion for a fighter that’s just a little better than all the other ones we have that are superior to anything else on the block? All this is about feeding the military industrial complex, and the “war on terror” is the big smokescreen which brings us back to propaganda and the manipulation of public ignorance to the point that people want to burn Korans.
The larger issue is complex. We are a superpower, and now the only superpower, and superpowers don’t always do things that fall into the category of benevolence, but as our bloated overreaching military empire comes apart at the seams in the modern world, we need to be a little more nimble in getting out of our own way.
I don’t agree with you about Islamic states having war built into their society. Compare the numbers: How many Islamic states have invaded and occupied other countries relative to the number of times the US has done that over the past, say, forty years? (Iraq invading Iran doesn’t count because we helped them).
Yes, Bruce, I agree so many of these issues and problems revolve around how we think of them and define them.
I'm searching for a way to give a figurative (or literal if need be) slap in the face to the American people. It's time we smartened up.
There is a Community there called:::
Right-Thinking America
"322 members, led by Jeff Emanuel -
Conservative News and Commentary from Americans in their Right Minds"
They are, sadly, of the same mindless thinkers as are on Gather re everything. It would really be nice to have a community of Good, Progressive, and forward, thinking Americans speak up for what is true and good about this Nation.
We need to find, or create, such a community. Lot of work though.
Stay in touch! I can investigate the how to-s, and get that to you.
I don't advocate burning the Koran.
However, the stupidity and violence of the scale of 1.4 billion people duped or terrorized into following a religion that sets itself up to be righteously offended so it can terrorize and play the victim is something I find so foul, and so NOT TALKED ABOUT and so politically incorrect that I just have to speak out.
This is not the Koran, it is a mass produced copy of a book, a very old, stupid, useless book with lots of idiocy in it. Before yelling at me about Islamophobia, I think the same thing about any other old religious text. If it was some historic document or the real Koran, I would have a major problem with it, but it is a mass produced product, like a billions rolls of toilet paper, like a billion Gideon's Bibles.
When you mass-produce something you cannot know or predict or care what happens to every single copy, or make sure that everyone whose hands these things falls into respects the so-called divinity of the object, especially since there is none there.
This is the typical mode of operation of Islam, to take land and then claim that it is special and the henceforth God demands that land to be kept in the hands of Islam ... how absurd ... how ridiculous ... how criminal ... and how intolerant!
It is like drawing a line in the sand and then saying that line is so important that if anyone steps over it I have the right to murder them, and that even if they do not step over it, I have the right to be threatening and arrogant and belligerent to intimidate based on the fact that I have hyped myself and my beliefs up to some ridicuous level.
It is only because the West developed technology and weapons faster than Islam that we have the luxury of even discussing this, because if it was the other way around we would be fighting and dying for our lives, or being forced to become Islamic.
Think about that side of this issues for a while. I agree the Reverend is being a jerk, but any religion that sets itself up to be able to take deadly offense at the actions of a fool, or of a cartoonist does not deserve any respect, and is probably going to end up in violence anyway, unless it grows up and enters the modern world.
So it is not "any religion that sets itself up to be able to take deadly offense at the actions of a fool," it is a minority subset of ideologues within that religion. Just as minority subsets of ideologues in this country and elsewhere seem to dominate the news coverage.
Which is why this whole thing is so disheartening. Rather than encourage the peaceful and sane Muslims in our communities, as we would have done in fully supporting the Manhattan community center, certain folks among us seek to foment ideological proselytizing by lumping all Muslims into the subset with the worst Muslims. That is insanity. When the vast majority are good it makes sense to isolate the small minority who are bad, not demonize all indiscriminately.
There are a very small number of civilized human beings on this planet.
I have to disagree with you, when Islam and state are the same, it is the religion that is doing this. The problem is that however imperfect the world is, just like the slave South and the North of the United States could not coexist, ie. a house divided, we cannot have a peaceful world and have 1/3 of it living under this kind of system. Even though most Muslims might be very human, it is inhuman for them and non-Muslims to have to live under and intolerant and discriminatory system, and sooner or later it must be stopped, and a certain amount of violence is going to be needed to accomplish that.
I disagree with you as well on "encouraging" the peaceful Muslims in NYC. Many people are offended by that Mosque, including me. I am not offended enough to burn a Koran, but I would rather it not be built there, now. If it was Muslims that were offended by something, even though they are a small percentage of the population, or Gays, or Blacks, we all would take that seriously, but this thing with Muslims since we are righteously in conflict with them is suddenly something people can make a big scene about and call other people wrong.
Very tiresome. This story should have been ignored. What should have happened if possible is that President Obama should have made a speech about it, if it got to the major thing it is now, and explained to the Muslims world that does not understand, that this is our system of free speech and that we cannot do anything. Maybe recite "sticks and stones" to the Muslim world.
The fact that Germany had a vast majority that were not Nazis, yet because they were unable to act does that make then the vast majority that are good or bad? The vast majority has nothing to do or say about this, and from what we see, it is Islam. Islam is being used by Saudi Arabia to oppress all over the world. What else can we call it but Islam.
In fact, I, do discriminate. In several ways. First, American Muslims know that even though there are some rough moments in this, including some crimes, that America does not have a problem with them. Very very few American Muslims are susceptible to being radicalized because for the most part they can see how the US works, and it does work fairly well. Muslims here are higher level workers, a higher class if you will than Muslims in Europe who are like Mexicans here and have the lowest jobs. That is a practical difference. Also most Muslims here had to escape their countries, not just come here looking for better work.
Anyone who does not understand the difference between Muslims in America and Muslims in other parts of the world, and Muslims living in Muslim countries need to be educated. We should start to differentiate in the media and the news about this. It is important.
That sounds reasonable. But how many "Muslim countries" are there where "Islam and state are the same?" The answer is six. Just 6 of the 47 countries that are at least 50% Muslim are Islamic states, i.e., where Sharia law or the Koran are the rule of law. Those 6 are Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Mauritania. The other 41 are either secular or have Islam as an official religion (much like many claim the US is a "Christian nation").
What else can we call it but Islam.
I would call it totalitarian abuse of Islam to control their people and secure the wealth among the royal class. At least for Saudi Arabia. For other countries you would replace royal class with either wealthy class or military or theologian class. Whomever is the power broker who wants to maintain their power.
Very very few American Muslims are susceptible to being radicalized because for the most part they can see how the US works, and it does work fairly well.
That's probably true, and yet there are Americans who have converted to Islam and become radicalized. So if even American Muslims are susceptible, imagine the peer pressure if you grow up in Islamabad and barely scrape by.
Also most Muslims here had to escape their countries, not just come here looking for better work.
About 1/3 of Muslims in the United States were born in the United States. Ethnicity of American Muslims is pretty diverse, including whites, blacks, hispanics, and asians. Many converted from other religions. So I'm not sure escape is the quite accurate, at least for a large percentage of American Muslims.
It is important.
I agree. Very few Americans, in my opinion, have the foggiest idea about how people in other parts of the world live. We've become complacent in our affluence, and many have become arrogant. And we wonder why so many don't take well to that treatment.
Also countries where Islam is used as a reason to circumcize women. Additionally there are non-Muslims countries where Muslims just live under Sharia law, or whatever customs they have. Also, in other countries like India there is religious strife between Muslim villages and non-Muslims.
The whole Kashmir thing is about religion/governent.
Looked at clinically, Islam is a very totalitarian system. The birth rate is one weapon. The mental attitude is another. Male dominance and cruelty is another. Terrorizing children is another and brainwashing them - as well as not educating them and keeping them ignorant. The macho arrogance and pride and the superiority ... we can see from our own Southerners many who still believe they are superior to blacks or other minorities - this brainwashing is strong and dies hard.
There is also Turkey which is teetering on becoming a Muslim state,the main reason that Europe wants to wait and see before letting it join the European Union.
The big diaspora to the US from the Middle East was after the Iranian revolution. Those people were escaping. If Iraq blows up after we leave, Iraqis will be coming here as well. The people in America ... of course ... are people like any others, but in many ways are different and have different outlooks and experiences than in other places. We are lucky about that.
Seriously. Is there something in the water in this country?
Those who have followed me for the last 3-1/2 years here on Gather know that I had a policy not to delete comments for most of that period. That ended when I started receiving abusive, obsessive-compulsive, and harassing comments. Some of these comments included death threats, verbal assaults, and suggestions of bodily harm. Others were merely intensely dishonest. Because of this I was forced to change my policy.
I also realized that these obsessive-compulsive and abusive commenters tend to leave voluminous comments on single threads, thus reducing the intellectual value of the thread for others. By effectively chasing away honest discussants and violating their right to a non-hostile commenting environment, the threads commonly degenerated into pissing matches. Again, this abusive behavior is not conducive to a productive use of the valuable time we give to this medium.
Thus to ensure a more intelligent and fruitful discussion I decided that commenters who violate the rules of common decency will no longer be tolerated. Those who violate common decency, or who engage in other questionable behavior can go elsewhere.
--- original message ---
From: Robert F. protectionist
Subject: Re: [Political Futures]Burning Qur'ans - The Idiots Rule, and Other Parables of Media Failure
Sent: Sep 19, 2010 08:43 AM EDT
So this is how you operate ? You send me a message, requesting me to read your latest post, and when I do, and exercise my right to free speech, like the Islamofascists you support, you censor my comments.
You're a piece of work, you are. My comments were, in no way, verbally abusive, or anything that would justify being deleted. They simply differed with your opinion, and you are too much of a gutless coward to allow them to stand in your post, as you were unable to refute them.
I notice that every comment in the post (and there were many) were in agreement with you. Hmmm. Makes me wonder. Are you deleting every comment that isn't perfectly in agreement with you ? Shameless.
The framers of the Constitution must be rolling in their graves.
And my response:
From David K.
To Robert F. protectionist
Subject Re: [Political Futures]Burning Qur'ans - The Idiots Rule, and Other Parables of Media Failure
Sent Sep 19 2010, 09:24 AM EDT
You made false accusations about me and threatened legal action on the other post. While your pathological xenophobia is your business, I see no reason to put up with your verbal attacks, obsessive-compulsive commenting, and violation of common decency. Feel free to exercise your first amendment rights to post your rantings on your own page. I am exercising my first amendment right to not accept abusive behavior. I deleted no other comments besides yours, and for the reasons I stated above and had already warned you about. As I had said, I deleted them without reading them or commenting so suggestions that it was done to somehow purge dissenting views is totally unsupported by fact and logic.
Given your complaint that you received an email from the Political Futures group requesting you read an article, I have now removed you from the group. Thus, you will no longer be bothered by group emails. That doesn't stop you from commenting on any article that is posted there as it will still be open for all to read and comment. It is up to the authors of individual posts as to how they choose to respond to your comments and those of others. But I will do as I previously told you I would do, which is remove your comments from any of my posts because of your false accusations and threats.
In addition, since you seem to have carried over your obsessive-compulsive, abusive and insulting behavior to emails, I will be blocking your name from any further correspondence. I doubt Gather appreciates abuse of their email feature.
Goodbye
Thank you.
My big regret is that the press didn't ignore the twit. Without the light of publicity, even the bad publicity he got-he would have just gone away.
Exactly. I have less a beef with the preacher as I do the media. There are lots of odd people out there. The problem is that the media use them to promote the media themselves. They don't care that showcasing this guy will cause people of the Islamic faith to wonder how much the guy represents all of America. After all, one nut job in the park ranting about how the world is coming to an end is easy to ignore. But when you give him credence and a soapbox, then have half the country agreeing with him on purely xenophobic grounds, what else can others in the world think of us?
We've lost our intellectual integrity. And perhaps quite a bit of our sanity.
As for losing intellectual integrity-I'm not as sure it was all that common in our media at any time to begin with. Even a cursory look at the contents of our news media of the past shows it was often highly partisan and blatantly just factually wrong.
No idea what can be done as the possible solutions are in the long run as bad as the original problem.
I agree that being factual seems to have a low priority, especially in some news outlets more than others. But I would argue that "newsworthy" is also not defined the way most people would understand it. Now it means "controversial enough to garner higher ratings, even if we have to contrive it to make it seem controversial." The News is creating news that isn't news until they create it. Take the Obama birth certificate garbage. It isn't news at all. But it is contrived to keep it on the airways specifically to encourage the most basest xenophobics in the country. That isn't news, it is in effect sedition.
Can't argue with that. The media now, well some of the media now, seem to think they are back in the days when newspapers were run as party mouthpieces.
I do not agree with Beck on everything he says. However, when he gives facts that I am able to look up for myself, and those facts are true, I have to believe him! I feel he serves an important role in our society as long as people do their research and become aware of what is going on behind our backs. We, the Public, have sat back too long and let our government go down the drain. It is time we stand up and make ourselves heard.
Thank you Ron, I'll look that up.