You mean the extremely watered down health care and financial reform bills aren't the end of civilization?

SI

(1) Burning a Koran is stupid. No reasonable person should do it.

(2) But, every American has a fundamental right to do it.

(3) And I'm not a fan of generals and other executive branch officials going on the record trying to discourage such behavior by private citizens.

I think it's mostly just that life gets in the way. The people that tend to make such "promises" are young, single, childless, and idealitic (At least the ones I knew). A few years go by, suddenly there's a kid running around and a mortgage payment, and the "revolution" seems less important. Tough to jump on a boat to Thailand to make a point then.

The intense liberal views on this are definitely interesting. I wonder if a lot of them just like to be on the opposite side of the GOP Christians. Because you just don't seem them vigorously waving the flag of religious freedom, and especially respect of religion, in many other contexts. (Would they be out in force if people wanted to burn bibles?)

Someone should have an event where books from all religions are burned together, as an interfaith event, and to show how meaningless it is to burn books.

That would be a good event, but nobody would care about it, because you're not pitting people against each other as directly. You're just making a fire. Which goes back to why it would be a good event.

Because I don't want to really face the likely illegal consequences that many neighbors would bring on my property, I've decided I can't do this. But for the past few years, I've wanted a crazy "interfaith" Christmas display in my yard. First, you'd have Jesus and a traditional nativity. But in another side, you'd have, say, Moses- or I could dig up Charlton Heston, maybe. Then I'd have some picture of Mohammad- probably a cardboard cutout from the Super Best Friends episode of South Park. And he could be talking to a cardboard cutout of Kwanza Bot from Futurama. Then...

SI

I agree. Why are we so quick to defend Muslims and their rights (and God forbid we label any of them terrorists) but Christians are just a bunch of homosexual haters?

I'm Christian - pre-judge me.

I think we should be equal opportunity, and burn a bunch of Bibles at the same time this idiot is burning Korans. For every Koran that gets burned, a Bible also gets torched. See how he and his idiot followers feel about that.

Can I burn a copy of those darn bills I kept getting for some guy who used to live in our apartment in Richmond? I was tired of his non-college-loan paying ways!

SI

Burn anything you like! Bonfire!

Because I'm kind of a nutjob I would actually find that display spirtually moving. It's like an artistic expression of man's broad attemps at understanding more.

Here's an interesting story on Rick Santorum's Google problem. From Mother Jones:


Have to admit I had never heard of santorum.

[redacted]

Ain't nothing harder than being Christian in the USA.

Laughable that you pretend this is the driving force behind your political beliefs.

Not buying this as the reason. (That you're all about sticking up for the less fortunate). And even if that was true - there's people in this country with bigger problems, aren't there? Why is the most important cause right now? Burning books? I just don't buy that the current obsession with this is genuine. It's just the next inning in the political bitch fight. Everybody needs to go feed a homeless person or something.

Huh??

In what other contexts?

Religious freedom is all fine and good. But separation of church and state trumps religious freedom, and that's where a lot of conservative-christians seem to want to take the "religious freedom" argument.

Is that what you mean, or do you mean something else?

No, I mean that the big liberal pet cause right now seems to be anti-Islam bashing. Which two posters here claim is the case because the Muslims suffer so darn much in America.

Olberman's even going the "it will hurt the troops" route. (I haven't heard anyone else try to justify this new "movement" in that way though, I think Olberman is just trying to work the character.)

The last time this happened, the whole world went to hell in a handbasket!

Nazi book burnings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Surely you admit it is easier to be a Christian in the U.S. than it is to be a Muslim?

WTF? I think the media coverage over the book burning is stupid but that the government, particularly the military shouldn't go to the "Do X and the terrorists win" defense.

I remember when you used to get mad at generalizations.

I guess, depending on the region of the country. I don't think it's really that "hard" for either though. Neither are dealing with state raids of their worship services or anything.

LMAO

Except for umm...General Petreus on the ground...former troops interviewed on TV stations...common sense (considering they've already burned the guy in effigy in kabul just for planning to do it).

Hell - I heard Dennis & Callahan (the conservative morning hosts on sports talk radio here in Boston as you may remember?) this morning talking about how the guy had every RIGHT to do it, but it was a stuipd thing to do because it would get innocent people, or American soldiers over there killed.

This comes from a pretty conservative source, but some think that that may start to happen in France.

Breitbart.tv » Paris Authorities Look Other Way as Muslims Block Streets for Weekly Prayers

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/201...g-to-the-West/

Islam in France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But just over the last couple of months Muslims have had protests against houses of worship in a number of states, multiple violent attacks directed at Muslims or suspected Muslims, construction equipment burned at a mosque construction site, etc. You're blind if you can't see a growing anger towards Muslims in the US.

I admit that I'm overly grumpy about this issue and I'm not sure why.

I just perceive that I'm always defending religion and Christianity (on this board and in real life) against people who lean liberal (who are the majority of people in my life, and on this board), and now, all of the sudden, a big chunk of them are all concerned about the plight of Muslims in America. It doesn't feel sincere at all to me. Especially when we still (to my knowledge) haven't seen any state action suppressing Islam. Everything else is just free speech.

I'd be more pissed if Christians started burning Beatles albu.....oh wait, never mind.

Oh, give it 30-something years, Islam is probably going to be the dominant religion in Europe.

Heck, my country, the Philippines, is one of only two predominantly Catholic countries in Asia, the other being East Timor.

We've got Indonesia, the largest Muslim population in the world, right next to us... along with Malaysia, and Brunei, both predominantly Islam as well.

I'll try to be polite, because this has set me off a bit.

Remember that you don't know me. My religious beliefs are pretty personal and while I don't hide them I don't feel like proclaiming them at every turn. I'm not necessarily the other that you would like me to be.

There was nothing in my last post that was directed towards you personally. I intentionally phrased it (or tried to phrase it) as my general perception about that issue and why it was annoying me this morning. And I have no doubt that some of that annoyance is irrational.

I did respond to one of your posts earlier, when I (and someone else) were asking why this issue was so big right now, and you gave an answer, which I said I didn't buy. I have no idea if that was your personal answer, or your guess as to how that was how others felt.

Edit: I did notice too that a lot of the biggest anti-religion posters at FOFC are sitting this one out, and not jumping to the defense of Islam, which I can definitely respect.

Unless you mean "in my view" this is absolutely untrue. Separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. Not sure how something not in the Cons't can trump something in it, free exercise clause. Besides, the notion of separation is a wall of separation, meaning at some point there is overlap.

I know how, but I won't get in to it for the 500th time here....

Instead, time for a bagel and coffee.

There are big differences here though. Having big protests over building a place of worship or having talking heads seriously state that a religion doesn't have freedom of religion rights is well beyond anything else.

Can you provide the source for that?

The Establishment Clause and the Free Enterprise Clause together form the basis for the Supreme Court's interpertation of the separation of church and state. You can't have one without the other.

And a wall does not imply that there's overlap - not sure where you get that strange idea. What would it have to be called to ensure there's no overlap? What's the right word for that? :p

Woo-hoo!

*shrug* They were going to get raised either way. Fucking healthcare companies.

Next thing somebody will claim is that the housing credit was just a super-expensive way to push the dates of home purchases around and ensure historic low home sales immediately after the credit ended. (Though I definitely enjoyed the government subsidizing more than 10% of the purchase price of my house, when I didn't really need the help.) Now I'm tied into the area and am not going to easily travel and fill in unemployment gaps elsewhere. What did the taxpayers get for this?

Of course there is overlap, no wall, as far as i know, goes on forever. :)

Establishment and Exercise are in conflict with each other. There are lots of religious examples and practices within the government: god we trust, one nation under god, prayer breakfast, etc. what is allowed also changes from generation to generation.

+1. Did anyone believe the current state was going to lower costs?

I won't disagree that there are a lot of examples and practices within the government.

But I call bullshit on your "overlap" comment. When used in that context, "wall" clearly is referred to as something separating one thing entirely from another.

I don't think anyone would ever confuse me for a liberal. Well not on this board in any case. Although my in-laws and probably a few people at my church would possibly place me in that camp.

I believe that advocating the burning of another religion's holy books is definitely against basic christian tenets. Forget all about treating others as you would like to be treated, forget about loving sinners, forget about considering the impact of one's actions on other believers or non-believers. Instead, let's go all in for hate and divisiveness.

Opposing this should be a no-brainer for most Christians.

Not sure why anyone is surprised. If you have to accept all those who apply, regardless of condition, they're going to see an increase in costs from those who use the health care system more.

So you do not disagree that there is overlap but you feel that total separation is the intent of the phrase? If government were "entirely" separate from the church then it would be a violation of free exercise (no legal religious marriages for example)

What's a "legal religious" marriage?

Agreed on the Christians - what confuses me is why it's such a no-brainer for Keith Olberman and friends.

But words like "wall" and "seperate" are just policy terms added into constitutional caselaw.

Do these things conflict?

-Congress shall make no law:
1. respecting an establishment of religion
2. prohibiting the free exercise thereof

The second one is pretty easy, the first one is a little harder to nail down a meaning for. Clearly, Congress can't establish a "national religion", and they can't favor any one religion over another. "Seperation of church and state" may be a perfectly line idea or policy about how government should be run, but it seems like a stretch to me that the constitution requires it.

why not?

Sure - I say that "favoring one over another" extends to putting up statues drawing on one or the other on public property. If you have a statue (built with public funds no less) on public property drawing on one religion and not another then you are favoring one over another. To continue to use that as an example, I'm not sure what's so contentious about that?

The Constitution certainly requires it. Then again, I recognize that my views on this issue are probably as extreme as those of the pro-gun folks. I'd advocate more seperation then we have now. But I'm also aware of the fact that that's not necessarily feasible, so I'll take what I can get.