No Koran burning, no mosque at Ground Zero?

7 thoughts on “No Koran burning, no mosque at Ground Zero?”

  1. I’m reminded of the military term for something that has gone every way but right. It rhymes with Bluster Truck.

  2. I’m conflicted about the whole thing. Some dark part of me wanted to see the burning of the supposed holy book – in terms of inflaming nutjob jihadists, they need no inspiration or provocation to become inflamed. They do a fine job of that themselves. In terms of the mosque at ground zero – sorry but it’s as political a move as any other obvious political ploy. Regardless of freedom of religion rights or any other bluster, there is a thing called sensitivity that seems to be being overlooked. To coin a phrase… in all the sites in all the world, they want to build a mosque here?

    Call me crazy or worse, but I’m afraid I don’t view muslims as people of peace nor do I see their religion that way. But I guess I’m just an infidel at heart.

    Can’t really say I’m a fan of Lennon’s view either.

    Guess there is no upside to this issue one way or the other.

    1. Isn’t it equally insensitive for screaming Christians to be marching in the streets with hateful signs trying to intimidate a peaceful organization into changing its perfectly legal plans to build a community center? And worse, drag a cabbie from his vehicle and beat him just because he is a Muslim? Aren’t Christians taught to love one another and follow the Golden Rule? These people are behaving just as irresponsibly as the crazy preacher who threatened to burn the Koran just to hurt and anger Muslims. It’s insanity to let the nut jobs of the world, either these Americans or the jihadist extremists who attacked us, set the tone of the conversation for the rest of us, the majority of people who despite our biases and fears choose to behave as responsible, rational adults.

  3. Maybe it is insensitive but perhaps Christians are tired of turning the other cheek? To me, it’s one of those futile situations…Christians are admonished for not following their own doctrine and at the same time told to tolerate others who are throwing tantrums. I can understand the frustration. It seems to me that the only people being admonished are Christians while non-Christians are being tolerated and encouraged for childish and inflamatory behavior.

    Whether or not any holy book burnings were occurring there is still plenty of death to America demonstrations and flag burnings and bible burnings going on across the world. But no one seems to care about that. In fact, we are supposed to tolerate that and modify our behavior because we might upset someone.

    If non-Christians are allowed free speech, why are Christians excluded from the same right? Public discourse is a constitutional right, whether we like the message or not, isn’t it? I think the families of 9/11 victims have a right to protest if they want to. Do you honestly think that if someone wanted to build a Christian church in Mecca there wouldn’t be riots in the streets? To me, it equates to the same thing.

    Perhaps it’s less about law and more about understanding. If muslims by and large are peaceful people practicing a religion of peace then why not be more altruistic and yield to the feelings of others? Christians are expected to – why doesn’t the same rule apply to others? I guess that’s my point the scales of ‘tolerance’ seem to only tip in one direction.


    1. Any particular situations in mind when you mention non-Christians throwing tantrums or displaying childish, inflammatory behavior? The only ones I can think of offhand are those occurring in other countries, and we have zero control over those. Same with the demonstrations and flag burnings in other parts of the world. And even if all that were occurring in this country, such demonstrations of free speech would be constitutionally protected — minus the personal assaults and destruction of other people’s property, of course.

      As for the NYC mosque, neither Christians nor Muslims have been denied free speech as far as I know. The 9/11 families have every right to express themselves, as do the mosque’s supporters. However, a Christian church in Mecca in no way equates to the mosque in NYC; we have freedom of religion in this country and Saudi Arabia does not. Besides, that would equate the protesters here to rioting mobs in the Middle East, and no one is doing that.

      I agree, the law is clear in this case. It’s the matter of sensitivity and understanding that is the conundrum. I’m sure there are Muslims thinking, “If Christians ‘by and large are peaceful people practicing a religion of peace then why not be more altruistic and yield to the feelings of others?'” You see the dilemma? Who’s more insensitive, the Christians demanding the mosque be stopped or the Muslims determined to build it? What would show more tolerance, Christians stopping their protest or Muslims stopping the mosque project? (This is an oversimplification, of course. Presumably not all the mosque opponents are Christian and not all the mosque supporters are Muslim.) Seems to me it’s a pretty even balance, and I have no idea how it will be worked out.

      By the way, here’s a question: Some of the 9/11 families are Muslim; how do they feel about all this?

... and that's my two cents