Can doesn't imply ought, but tit might imply tat - Macleans.ca
 

Can doesn’t imply ought, but tit might imply tat


 

Angela Merkel has weighed in on the Islamophobia sweeping the US right now. Short version — Koran burning is wrong, but Mohammed cartoons are ok. I pretty much agree with that, though one thing she said struck me, in her defence of Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard:

“It is about whether or not he can publish his cartoons, yes or no,” said Merkel. “Whether they are necessary or helpful or tasteful or not doesn’t matter. Is he allowed to do it? Yes, he is.”

It’s maybe worth pointing out that this is the exact same argument that some muslims have made in defence of the “ground zero” mosque.  American law gives them the right to do it, end of story. In response to which, conservatives have responded with that obnoxious line that was being passed around: “That we allow them to build the mosque says a lot about us; that they’ll build it says a lot about them.”

Again, muslims said pretty much the exact same same thing back when the Danish cartoons were published. It went something like: “Just because you can do something, it doesn’t mean you should, especially if it causes great offence.” It shouldn’t surprise anyone to find muslims shoving that argument back in the face of the people who told them to get stuffed in 2005.

As always, the best-case solution to all of this would be for people to just stop believing in God. Religious intolerance is the proximate cause of the strife, but religious belief is the ultimate source of the problem. As Richard Dawkins likes to point out, religious people shouldn’t find atheism all that difficult. After all, every believer already doesn’t believe in a great many gods — the trick is to just go “one god more” and stop believing in the one god you’ve settled on.

But that’s not going to happen. The second-best solution would be for everyone to exercise a bit of religious toleration.

But that’s not going to happen either. So what to do? I think it is incumbent on all Christian groups, this Saturday, to burn a big stack of Bibles. In such heated times, a show of solidarity amongst all of Abraham’s children would go a long way.


 
Filed under:

Can doesn’t imply ought, but tit might imply tat

  1. There has been some talk about a group taking bibles to the bonfire to see some mad scrambles when the 'devout' realize what they're tossing. LOL

    Meantime it seems this 'pastor' was tossed out of Germany for dipping into church funds. His current 'church' only has 50 people.

    • Awesome! We should hold a bible-burn to protest the koran-burn! God told me to say that! ;)

    • I freakin' LOVE this idea– toss a bunch o' Bibles in there at the same time and see either a) a scramble to put the flames out or b) the endless bumbling angels-on-a-head-of-a-pin justification for why it's okay to let the bibles burn along with the Koran.

      And yes Emily, I agreed with you.

  2. "Radical Danish imams have deliberately incited hatred against Denmark, the country that had hospitably welcomed them in. To this end, while on a visit to Arab countries last month, they added three false, extremely offensive Muhammad “cartoons” to the twelve relatively mild ones published by Jyllands-Posten last September … " Brussels Journal, Feb 2006

    I am not sure your analogy is all that great, Potter, since the cartoons that created the controversy were fake and did not appear in Denmark. Imans created fake ones to gin up outrage in Muslim world and now we have Canadian columnists helping them with their propaganda efforts.

    "As always, the best-case solution to all of this would be for people to just stop believing in God."

    Really? In the past century, atheists are responsible for way more death and misery than religious people are. At least religious people do charity work and the like, atheists just murder in the millions. Hitchens is great example – giving religious people a hard time while admiring a mass murder (Trotsky). I can do without those kinds of morals, thanks.

    • The Brussels Journal isn't a reliable source I'm afraid.

      And please don't drag out that old canard about atheists, as it's simply not true.

    • "At least religious people do charity work and the like, atheists just murder in the millions."

      This is the most thing you've ever said. And coming from someone as brainless as you, that's saying somthing.

      • "This is the most thing you've ever said."

        If you are calling people brainless, you should try to write coherent sentences while doing so. Might make your argument more compelling.

        Mao/Lenin/Trotsky/Che/Castro – all admired by the left, all atheists and all mass murderers. Over the past hundred years, who has killed more than them?

        I've long wondered why left wing types who admire Mao or Lenin or Trotsky have a problem with Hitler. What's the difference? Didn't Hitler murder enough to join the ranks of people to admire?

        • Either I typed too quickly or the word "stupid" got censored. Either way, I'm right-wing, not left, and you're still a moron.

          • Darn, I thought we could have a fill the blank contest on the missing word.

        • They were not all atheists, and no one has ever been killed in the name of atheism. Millions have been killed in the name of one church or other though.

          • Yep, the Soviets shot clergy in the back of the head because of whimsy, rather than because they thought religious thought was a cancer that needed to be excised from society.

          • Stalin was a seminarian m'dear. Believer till the end.

            He opposed the Russian Orthodox church because they supported the czars, but he used them when necessary.

            Nowt to do with belief…it was about power.

          • You actually believe that Stalin was a believer? Hah! Despite the fact that he considered the belief in God sheer nonsense, and is quoted as such?

            Okay then, how about the rest of the communist regimes who did the exact same thing?

            Like I said Emily, you find the same sorts of people everywhere. You (and Andrew Potter apparently, who I presumed was smarter than that) believes that if everyone adopts atheism it will lead to a world with less conflict and violence. Unfortunately, you cannot change human nature, but only repent of it.

          • Historical record, dude.

            Just like Hitler was RC…and there are photos and quotes to prove it.

            Yes, there are well over a billion atheists on the planet….plus people who are technically atheist that you don't think of….like Buddhists.

            I don't recall Andrew Potter… or me….saying anything about it eliminating violence. But human nature isn't normally violent….no matter what you've been taught by your 'christian' priests. They have to be psyched up to kill other people And religion is a really good tool for psyching morons up to kill others.

          • Emily, what you do to the historical record leaves it crying and scrubbing itself in the shower.

          • It exists all by itself. No help from me is needed.

            The RC church should be sobbing and scrubbing itself though.

          • I'm saying that you have an extremely warped view of history that is easily disproven by the facts of the historical record. No amount of aggressive insults are going to change that until you actually put your retirement to good use and correct it with good, sensible historical sources.

            Many mature students go to universities to take classes in the humanities to enrich themselves. There are many classes on 20th century history that you can take.

          • I don't have ANY view of history. It exists all by itself.

            I'm not retired, and I don't read catholic propaganda thanks.

          • "…human nature isn't normally violent…"

            Really? A rather bold and sweeping statement. If you're entire case rests on that, you're building on a shoddy foundation. "Human nature" is meaningless in the abstract: you can't assess it in a vacuum. And in the real world, outside the comment box, humans committ unspeakable acts of violence towards each other every day. You're notion of 'psyched up' isn't a way out of this: if an individual kills another for his jacket or shoes, there's faint ideological fervor at work. Yet it occurs. In my mind, your belief (your 'atheism' if you like) is itself an ideological orientation that suggest humanity is inherently perfect, or capable of such: violence and deviance, always on account of some outside force 'psyching' the individual into acts against their nature. This is little more than cozy middle-class utopianism: it renders you extremely naive in the face of history, and daily life in other places. For all its warts, transgressions, and abuses (for which it rightly must be called to account…perhaps to its downfall) Christianity affirmed an important truth: we're crooked timber (to borrow a term). Unguided and unrestrained, without Law, we are nasty beasts. What is troubling is how little 'psyching up' is actually required.

    • atheists just murder in the millions

      This is true. In fact, since breakfast today I've killed just over 64,000 people and counting. Granted, that's an above-average day, but I'm still on pace to kill about 2 million in 2010.

      • Not Jedis I hope ! That'd only legitimize the census detractors!

  3. You said tit.

  4. Do you mean any possibe muslim cartoon or those published by that guy in Denmark? Because some of those Danish cartoons actually were offensive*, whereas the only arguments against the "mosque" are based on xenophobia or ignorance.

    *though not so much as to violate Canadian Human Rights law, which doesn't actually contain a right not be offended -oooooooh, did I just blow some right wing minds, or hurt their favourite little hobby horse?

  5. the Islamophobia sweeping the US right now

    You can't be serious. Oh wait, you can. Good lord.

    • I am not sure why Potter decided to make sweeping comments about America. What about so-called 'islamaphobia' sweeping Germany at the moment, would have tied in nicely with Merkel, but I guess making those claims against Germans isn't as fun or sophisticated.

      "Thilo Sarrazin's controversial new book on Muslims in Germany has not only generated opprobrium from the political elite, it has also generated a mass following from the population at large. The tome may be full of inaccuracies, but it has struck a nerve." Der Spiegel, Sept, 2010
      http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,151

      • "I am not sure why Potter decided to make sweeping comments about America. "

        Did you read the article? It (and Merkel) focused on the upcoming Koran-burning. It was perfectly reasonable of Potter to talk about the article in that context.

        • One isolated act of constitutionally protected Koran-burning is an example of "Islamophobia sweeping the US right now"? This is what you call "perfectly reasonable"?

          I call it stunning.

          • Read my post again. I didn't say that that phrase was reasonable, I said it was reasonable of Potter to focus on the Koran-burning, since that was the topic of the article.

            That's what I meant by "It was perfectly reasonable of Potter to talk about the article in that context."

          • This is the specific passage you cited and responded to:

            "I am not sure why Potter decided to make sweeping comments about America. "

            So then why did he make those bizarrely sweeping comments about America again? One isolated incident justifies a sweeping smearing of America?

          • You're being obtuse. Bergkamp's passage proceeded to include: " What about so-called 'islamaphobia' sweeping Germany at the moment"

            My point was that Potter's focus on US Islamophobia made sense, since that's what the cited article focused on.

            "So then why did he make those bizarrely sweeping comments about America again?"

            How the hell should I know? Maybe you should ask him.

          • Bergkamp was specifically addressing the "sweeping" nature of Potter's statement. Do you not understand this? Or are you simply unwilling to admit that you made a huge mistake? I don't think anything justifies the smear against America that Potter made. You seemed to suggest otherwise, or are simply not literate today. Then you have the gall to lash out at someone who got it right the first time. Amazing the stuff that goes on here.

          • Whatever dude, enjoy your own little world.

          • In other words, you're far better at knee-jerk insults than actually responding to the substance of a post. You obviously completely misunderstood the original post. When called on it, you lashed out. So much for civility and intellectualism.

          • Perhaps Potter is confusing "America" with "Fox News". Happens all the time. Now "IslamISTophobia", I can get behind that…

        • Not to mention all the other Islamaphobic things happening in the US. NY protests, and attacks on Sikhs, Rabbis and Greek Orthodox priests because they 'looked Muslim' etc.

          Trust the US to go berserk over what's in their own constitution!

          • Amazing how the left has to manufacture hate, or contribute to it, instead of stand against it where it actually exists.

    • Potter tends to lose the plot once in a while.

  6. So what to do?

    The media could stop giving all this attention to every crank and crackpot that comes along. But that's not going to happen either.

    • Totally. If the media didn't report the proposed Koran burning event nobody would know about it and therefore nobody would be offended by it. Let's burn copies of Maclean's!

    • The media could stop giving all this attention to every crank and crackpot that comes along.
      Indeed.

      But that's not going to happen either.
      Indeed, again. Especially since the Gitmo Koran-flushing-(-that-probably-never-happened-) was breathlessly trumpeted to all corners. Imagine when some jackass actually well and truly does something stupid deliberately for the publicity.

    • Hey, for the first time, I agree with buttface!

      It is just one pentecostal minister in Florida.

  7. adding "religious" to the in/tolerance you're talking about is an unneccessary distinction to make.

    • So religion and intolerance are synonymous, are they? That's awfully tolerant of you, isn't it.

      • Actually I had thought I was making the exact opposite point, but I see now how it could be misconstrued.

  8. Come on liberals, lets hear your arguments for someones rights to burn the Koran, because if it is fitting to depict Jesus Christ in feces, burn flags at will, build mosques anywhere then for certain it is OK to burn that koran, right.

    • I'd certainly love to hear an answer to that one that doesn't simply involve clicking thumbs down like a zombie.

    • I'm not a "liberal" but I don't see many arguing that someone doesn't have the RIGHT to burn a copy of the Koran, only that doing so is a free expression of their bigotry and ignorance – anyone who likes burning books isn't exactly on the moral high ground.

      • Shhh! He's talking to the "liberals" in his imagination. Don't spoil his fun.

        • First time I've heard the argument that the founding fathers were all liberals! LOL

      • I haven't read all the posts here, but I have heard the argument that the US government should step in and stop this. It was made on a local news show from someone who is usually more logical.

        I also scratch my head at the notion that this isolated act of Koran burning will somehow increase the ranks of Al Qaeda. This is what pushes someone into terrorism these days, is it? Wow.

        • "This is what pushes someone into terrorism these days, is it?"

          No, but it will fuel anti-Western propaganda. Surely you can imagine images of white Christian Americans burning the Koran presented as "proof" that America hates Islam.

          I don't see anyone claiming that this one event alone will radicalize lots of people, but it's not helpful in winning hearts and minds.

          • Why wouldn't it be proof of our freedom? Why do we have to apologize for that? In fact, the left often celebrates dissent and says it makes democracy stronger. I agree. So why not now?

            The Ground Zero Mosque they stand behind, even thought it offends many, but not this. Not surprising. It's not surprising that the left is completely selective in the rights they stand for, which basically means they don't stand for rights, just their own agenda.

          • Where, exactly, did I say they didn't have the right to burn the Koran?

            Do you even read other peoples' posts, or do you just respond to the liberal boogeyman in your mind?

            You made a comment about the effect this Koran-burning would have. I had a different opinion of the effect the Koran-burning would have. And now suddenly you're responding to an argument I never made, that somehow somebody should step in and prevent the Koran-burning.

          • The left was outraged that people were concerned about the "effect" that a Ground Zero Mosque would have, instead of standing for rights. In this case, the left doesn't stand for rights, just the "effect". But you can go on trying to insult people who dare disagree with you. It seems to be the only recourse from some on the left these days, unfortunately.

          • I don't know who "the left" is in your mind, but I can only be held responsible for my own words and actions.

            At no point have I suggested that the Koran-burning should be stopped or that anyone should interfere with the Christian a-holes' right to burn a book. Keep your strawman away from me.

          • Funny you feel a need to refer to these people as "Christian" a-holes. Aren't they just "a-holes" period?

          • S.O.P.: D_F

          • Really? How?

          • Really. Showing up ill-prepared to fight a battle of wits, blaming 'the left'.

          • Also: careening wildly about, goalposts in tow, and hurling insults ("You seemed to suggest otherwise, or are simply not literate today.").

            Then decrying the stupidity and incivility of people here ("So much for civility and intellectualism.")

            S.O.P indeed.

          • Let me explain where you went wrong. First, since nobody on this thread (or anywhere else on the Maclean's boards that I've seen) has said the US government should step in and stop this preacher, Dennis F "hasn't read all the comments" so that he can advise that he's heard the comment "somewhere". Now, since he's heard it "somewhere", he can safely assume YOU made the comment. And if you bother to relist every single comment you've made in the last week or so it won't matter (please don't try it) because "you lefties" are (obviously) all the same and he read it "somewhere".

            See how it works?

          • Convenient, no? LOL

          • Emily, you're quite the troll on Potter's blog huh.

          • Mmm no….I post on most blogs….at least ones with topics that interest me.

            Just like all the other posters….including you….do.

      • Wait a minute. Aren't many liberals, especially those on here, in favour of hate speech laws, and would this not fit their bill?

        • Remember, it's the US, where they don't have hate speech laws. In Canada:

          The mosque? nope.

          Burning the Koran? Nope.

          The muslim cartoons? Ezra tried to get charged with those and couldn't even squirm his way past a preliminary investigation despite almost begging to (visions of dollar signs in his eyes, no doubt).

          Canadian hate speech laws are really really hard to meet (after Boisson got off on appeal, almost absurdly so). Nowadays you pretty much have to devote your whole life to teaching public school students that Jews are inferior, like Zundel, or create a Nazi-sympathizer website.

          Sorry to disappoint.

          • So then it shouldn't be a problem to just drop the whole thing right? Why have a section 13 at all, if it isn't practical to enforce, and would be fairly scary for civil liberty if you did?

          • It's not a matter of being impractical to enforce (although there's bureaucracy and administration to absolutely every law – it's unfortunate but better than the alternative). It's a matter of there being a very high bar before speech can be found to be hate speech. Which is as it should be.

          • lol, you can think you're disappointing someone all you want. I didn't talk about the existence of hate laws here or in the States, but to their support by people, especially on the left.

            And I find your desire to want to attack the victim quite extraordinary. Levant publishes a cartoon, is forced to pay $10,000 defending himself, and you think he wanted it. I mean, is that your view of rape crimes, too? Holy cow.

          • It's entirely possible selling snake oil to the credulous hasn't allowed him to fleece as many as he would like, but that doesn't mean the guy is trying to make a buck or two.

            His claims of financial hardship related to his HRC appearances are likely spurious and the amounts spent inflated or unreasonable or both. Ezra won't be revealing professionally evaluated accounts of how much he has truly spent on one HRC investigation and another withdrawn complaint – mark my words on that one.

          • Hey, he's a lawyer: he probably charged himself top rates and padded the hours and expenses a bit before presenting the bill to himself.

          • Have you confused Zundel with Jim Keegstra? As far as I know, Zundel never taught school.

          • I probably did, yes.

    • Yes. It's just a book. Don't get yur panties in a bunch…

  9. I'd love to believe that if a bunch of us got together and burned some Bibles at the same time as the Koran burning that the response of Muslims would be as restrained/indifferent as that of Christians. But this is a false equivalence. For one thing, the Koran is even holier to Muslims (in a few ways) than the Bible is to Christians. For another, the influential people in western societies — as opposed to those in too much of the Muslim world — aren't trying to whip the average citizen up into a religious fury.

  10. Again, muslims said pretty much the exact same same thing back when the Danish cartoons were published. It went something like: “Just because you can do something, it doesn't mean you should, especially if it causes great offence.”

    No doubt many did. But there were hundreds of other muslims around the world who made the news by setting fires and fatwas and by killing people.

    And anybody who truly believes that the issue of the stupid jackass stunt of Koran-burning is hurt feelings, then hug your teddy bear nice and tight tonight. Because the rest of us are thinking about the hundreds who will be setting fires and fatwas and killing people.

    • Thinking? Think has very little to do with it. Obsessing, more like.

      • Interesting word. Obsession. D'you think that might apply a teensy bit to those who have been (and-or will soon be) setting fires and fatwas and killing people?

    • Yes, exactly. It has nothing to do with hurt feelings, and everything to do with death and destruction.

      • That a search on "cartoon death toll" gets so many hits on Google has to be a very telling indictment of the current state of the world.

        • Another thing to consider, is that the line "Just because you can do something, it doesn't mean you should, especially if it causes great offence.” is just so meaningless sometimes.

          If something is legal, then sooner or later someone is likely to do it. So, it's likely that sooner or later, out of the 6 billion people in the world, that even if 99.9% agree that something should not be done, there will be someone who disagrees, especially if it's legal.

          Even when something is not legal, it's still gonna happen sooner or later. Murder is illegal, but it happens.

          So the whole point is, what happens when the inevitable happens? Especially when it's legal? With the ground zero mosque, we ended up with a rather spirited debate. People said that line "even though it's legal, it should not be done". But nobody is torching cars or rioting (contrary to what Dems would like you to believe). There was debate. Which is fine.

          Contrast to the cartoons. We had a gazillion riots in the muslim world, people being killed and fatwas of death being issued. This is not fine.

  11. What muslims are setting fires? Or randomly killing people?

    Fatwas can only be issued by Imans, and people are free to ignore them.

    Imagine what would happen if Hindus or Muslims or …horrors, atheists… burned a pile of Bibles.

    • Dude, they're under your bed, in your closet and if you embolden them by letting them build mosques on the holy holy ground of 9/11 THEY WILL TAKE OVER YOUR COUNTRY AND MAKE YOUR CHILDREN WEAR BURKAS AND EAT YOUR BABIES!!!!!!!

      • LOL apparently!

        What a frightened bunch of wimps Cons are!

      • You remind me of what people say about rural gun owners.

    • Imagine what would happen if Hindus or Muslims or …horrors, atheists… burned a pile of Bibles.

      Carbon emissions: up. Christian violence in response: (crickets chirping).

      Reverends and priests do not issue fatwas.

      • LOL yes they do.

        Entire websites are devoted to the fatwas of people like Robertson, Falwell, Graham etc.

  12. Burning and destroying bibles happens every damn day. We've just gotten used to the obnoxiousness of atheists and liberals looking for ways to rile us up. Douchebags are douchebags.

    Heck, I don't know what the difference is between the Pastor in Florida burning a Koran and P.Z. Meyers destroying a copy of the Koran 2 years ago. Everyone screaming about this now didn't seem to care back then.

    • Really? I suppose you don't have a source for the atheists burning bibles?

      pz meyers didn't trash a koran either.

      • Sure he did, along with a consecrated Eucharist. He even has a picture on his blog.

        • The cracker I remember. I don't recall anything about a koran

          • Yep, it was in response to the accusation that he didn't have the stones to desecrate a Koran. So he desecrated a Koran and a copy of Richard Dawkin's God Delusion.

          • He might well have, but I'd still like to see a source.

          • Like I said, it is on his own blog.
            http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/the_gr

            There is a bunch of text to scroll through where he says we Catholics are ignorant and hateful, using internet posts and email from people who talk like you to back himself up.

            Then after that there is the picture that provides the proof of his desecration, with a eucharistic host, some ripped pages of the Koran, and a few pages of the God Delusion thrown in the trash.

          • Well, he's right about all of it, but the photo just shows a trash can with a variety of stuff, plus a banana peel and some coffee grounds.

            I hope he read the God Delusion first though. LOL

          • Why? There are many good arguments for atheism, but Dawkins is just reheated garbage from the 19th century. His meme theory too, which has the audacity to try and pass itself off as biology.

          • There are no 'good or bad' arguments for atheism. It's isn't debateable.

            No god/gods exist.

            Dawkins is a biologist.

  13. "As always, the best-case solution to all of this would be for people to just stop believing in God."

    Yep, because as we all know, atheists are incapable of warring with each other over questions of ideology and eschatology.

    Unless of course, they aren't, and have.

    • Well actually no war or even battle has ever been fought by atheists for atheism.

      Do you even know what the words mean? LOL

      • Sure they have, in so much as this burning of the Koran is being done by Christians for Christianity.

        • But it is being done by christians, for christians.

          • Well, it is being done by a pentecostal minister in Florida, for the purpose of proving a point about liberty and 9/11. Surely, you can find an example of a minister in an officially atheist regime doing far worse for the sake of eradicating the poisonous opiate that is religious thought, or an atheist of comparable social position desecrating or destroying a religious object.

            One day you'll realize Emily, that all the people you hate are very similar to yourself. I know a few evangelical and pentecostal Christians who write and talk exactly as you do, though with different goals and beliefs.

          • That's not why he's doing it. He's in it for the money and the fame. This is his 15 minutes.

            I don't know of any atheist regime….and you don't either.

            I doubt you know any genuinely religious people….or any atheists either.

            You don't know what the word means.

          • *sigh* The Soviet Union was officially atheist. China currently is. Pretty much all of the communist nations were.

            You like Wikipedia. Here you go.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

          • Those countries were officially 'free' as well.

            The Soviet Union had churches all over. So does China.

          • Hey, you're the one being absolutist about it. You want to claim that atheists aren't capable of religious persecution, or haven't committed religious persecution. That's simply not true, because people are people.

            As much as you may hate it, you are a shrill, parody of an abrasive old church lady yourself, just with different things to shriek about.

          • No wars, or even battles have been fought on behalf of atheists or atheism.

            Sorry dude. Preach your hate elsewhere.

          • Is dude the new LOL?

          • Well I could call you worse, but I'm trying to be polite.

          • Really? Since when? You do nothing but poison the comment boards since you showed up here.

          • Disagreeing with you is poisoning the comment boards?

            My you have an exaggerated opinion of yourself.

          • No, your constant use of ad hominem attacks is what poisons the comment boards. Your continual abusive condescension of anyone who disagrees with you poisons the comment boards. That and the fact that on every story, every thread of the conversation you are there crapping on people.

            That's it. I'm another person who is going to leave the site because I can't stand the sight of you anymore. I'm also not liking how I've become a lot angrier than I used to be on these boards. So I'm going to find something more productive to do.

          • I started out discussing the topic. I have continued to do so.

            The topic is about religion. If that's a sensitive topic for you, you could have skipped it. I skip a lot of topics I have no interest in.

            If historical truth bothers you….I guess you won't like these photos.

            DON'T LOOK
            http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

          • I occasionally fall for trolls as well. Site admins can punt the IPs of trolls which would clean up all but the rovers with laptops, but don't seem to want to. Instead of fostering discussion and community, it drives people away from sites.

          • Here you go again. It's called communism: the most deadliest political ideology in history. When you can't accept even basic truths, just what is your agenda about?

          • Jesus as a communist. I rest my case.

          • You haven't one.

            PS Jesus was a pacifist too.

  14. 'Islamophobia sweeping the US right now'

    About as much as the rabid socialist propaganda sweeping Macleans right now…

  15. Wave of Islamophobia?

    Really?

    And the evidence is, what exactly? Far leftist commentators say so.

    That the left has turned dissagreement with the tenets of radical Islam into some form of disease (phobia) that can be cured by the right treatment is typical of its approach to any debate: deligitimize in order to silence.

    In Afghanistan the Buddist temples are no more. In much of the middle east, Christian churches have been converted to mosques. Judaism is banished in most Muslim sectors.

    But objecting to the building of a single mosque (in a country that freely allows Muslims to worship) at the site of the greatest mass murder in the name of Islam, in the context of the very real perception that it will be an emblem of victory over infidels, and further inflaming the already unspeakable pain caused by three thousand simultaneous murders in the name of allah,

    is a "wave of Islamophobia?

    Welcome to today's tolerant progressive left.

    • Actually police reports say so. From local ones to the FBI.

      I doubt they're leftists. LOL

      And christian churches flourish in the ME. Always have.

      Hey, it's in the American constitution…freedom of religion.

      911 wasn't over religion though. Even your beloved Bush said that.

    • Hey! I remember that "today's tolerant progressive left" schtick from at least a year ago if not more– I've missed that line– nice to have you back honeybunch! Kathy? Kathy Shaidle?

      Anyhow, it's always a treat to see the "we have to sink to the intolerant level of other cultures in order to prove that we're, er, uh, better somehow than them" trope. The world reacted with revulsion/disgust/sadness when the Taliban mortared the Bamiyan Buddhas in March of '01. The treatment of Christians and Zoroastrians in Iran is well documented and protested by governments around the world.

      The Park 51 mosque is NOT at the site of Ground Zero. For god's sake, I was just there in mid-July! I was buying undies at Century 21 discount department store, even closer! Isn't that insulting? The sites aren't even visible from each other. Building a peaceful house of worship is not the same as purposefully mortaring the symbols of another religion– unless you insist on paintting any and all muslims with the same brush. Ok, fine, I want ALL Christians the world over to donate to local children's charities– because you just know that if a small portion of priests were molesters, then that means that ALL Christians, unless they go on TV and explicitly denounce it, are ALL in favour of molesting all children everywhere. In fact, I want the local parish demolished as it's next to a playground.

      • Kathy Shaidle was on here??

        Uck…immediate shower!

  16. Fifty member church in Florida gets international attention when it burns somebody else's holy book. Five thousand member churches hold free clinics to everyone, food pantries, home fix-ups for free…. and never get a mention even in local news.
    –Dave Foulk, Facebook. Hat tip: Instapundit

    • And if all networks gave the news at 11 by saying…there were no murders today, no wars broke out, nobody got killed and everyone is happy…..they'd have no audience.

      • …because such a scenario could never be true.

  17. The right to burn the Koran is inalienable. The right to insult Mohammed in cartoon form is inalienable. The right to put a crucifix in a vat of piss is inalienable. The right to make a virgin Mary portrait out of elephant sh*t is inalienable. The right to make a movie where "durka durka" is a parody of Arabic is inalienable. The right to make a documentary about how Islam/Catholicism/Mormanism/Shintoism oppresses women is inalienable. The right to call jihadists a bunch of misguided f**kwits is inalienable. The right to call mosque opponents a bunch of misguided f**kwits is inalienable. The right to wear white pants after labour day is inalienable…

    • The right to alienate is inalienable.

      stupid aliens…

      • What would Kang and Kodos do? WWKKD. That's going to be my new bumpersticker.

    • That's beautiful…..OK, maybe not beautiful, but in an odd sort of way it almost brings a tear to my eye….seriously.

  18. I haven't seen so much excitement over such a stupid action since someone burned a Quebec flag and it was shown in the Quebec media over and over and over again leading up to the last referendum vote.

    Get a grip and quit giving such boneheads the attention they crave. They are simply trolls.

    • Could get a lot of people killed though.

      Rudeness matters in a global world.

    • Hmmm– I remember that– it was a (heh, oh god) a bunch of nutters in an old-age home in Brockville– and they technically didn't burn the Fleur-de-Lis, they put it on asphalt and stomped on it. What word did they have back before the internet for troll?

      • Idiots?

  19. This notion that a belief in God is the driving problem here is ridiculous. Tribalism is a core element of humanity; the specifics of religion, language, nationality, the fact that your family comes from the wrong side of the river, etc. are just the excuse of the day. The world's population won't all start holding hands and singing if any one of those factors disappears tomorrow, we'll just find another reason to redefine Us vs Them. Can we finally bury John Lennon please?

  20. I believe that all it takes for you to be branded a supporter of this jackass, in the eyes of some people around here, is to correctly point out that the USA has a First Amendment. So you're doomed.

    • Well, in that case I am a supporter of this stunt, and I am a supporter of the mosque.

      In my mind I'm against both in that I'd advise anyone to cease and desist in both cases.

      But you're right, I'm willing to let property rights and free speech carry the day, so the mosque people should have their mosque and he should have his bonfire if we can't convince them otherwise.

      • One of the most important reasons I love freedom of speech: it lets us know who the idiots are.

  21. Re: "The second-best solution would be for everyone to exercise a bit of religious toleration. But that's not going to happen either."

    In fact there is more than a 'bit' of religious toleration in the US today, understood as peaceful co-existence of diversity and the absence of formal (state)/informal(non-state) persecution of minority religious (and other) groups. 'Toleration' implies disapproval (one doesn't tolerate something one approves of), and disapproval is well-displayed.