9/11/2010 Burn a Koran Day

[memo is money]

So, some US citizens blame the Koran or müslim world for 9/11 ??? Then, you're a tool of emperialist world of bankers. I just cannot believe how some people still cannot see or have not been aware of the facts... Do not you watch movies, documentaries (Zeitgeist etc) ? I'm sure some of you are still afraid of Usame Bin Laden one of whose close relatives was with Bush at breakfast on 9/11. Hmmm... seems like a real war between Muslim and Chrsitian world. The US is not governed by Obama and you know that very well. He is just another tool like Bush, father bush, Clinton (ohh, should I say Rockefeller?). So, how can you still believe in the fabricated stories of the government regarding the 9/11 ?

I'm a müslim and was very sorry when that incident happened. However, I did not, do not and will not take the responsibility of what was just another planned, organised, tricky scandal in order to provoke the masses, religions aganist one another. Do you really find the pastor that threatened to burn a Koran sincere? He's just a provocateur for me. There is nothing in the sacred book of Koran mentioning or encouraging terrorist actions or doing what it takes to spread the Islam etc. It just takes to leave the Jay leno show or a football game for a day and spend a couple hours doing a research concerning different religions and 9/11.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Already explained that, sharpy. If you would like to read the thread, then come back, we can continue. Thanks.

So your answer to why it is blasphemous is because God told you so?

 

[Archie Moses]

So, some US citizens blame the Koran or müslim world for 9/11 ??? Then, you're a tool of emperialist world of bankers. I just cannot believe how some people still cannot see or have not been aware of the facts... Do not you watch movies, documentaries (Zeitgeist etc) ? I'm sure some of you are still afraid of Usame Bin Laden one of whose close relatives was with Bush at breakfast on 9/11. Hmmm... seems like a real war between Muslim and Chrsitian world. The US is not governed by Obama and you know that very well. He is just another tool like Bush, father bush, Clinton (ohh, should I say Rockefeller?). So, how can you still believe in the fabricated stories of the government regarding the 9/11 ?

Loose Change and NWO, eh? That college documentary totally tells us how it is! Yeah to conspiracies, the Rockefellers, and the Lizard people.

 

[Archie Moses]

So your answer to why it is blasphemous is because God told you so?

lol

Read the whole thread, sharpy. It aint't that hard to read and understand what I there wrotecha, eh? I'd like to think not.

 

[C l u t c H 385]

So, some US citizens blame the Koran or müslim world for 9/11 ??? Then, you're a tool of emperialist world of bankers. I just cannot believe how some people still cannot see or have not been aware of the facts... Do not you watch movies, documentaries (Zeitgeist etc) ? I'm sure some of you are still afraid of Usame Bin Laden one of whose close relatives was with Bush at breakfast on 9/11. Hmmm... seems like a real war between Muslim and Chrsitian world. The US is not governed by Obama and you know that very well. He is just another tool like Bush, father bush, Clinton (ohh, should I say Rockefeller?). So, how can you still believe in the fabricated stories of the government regarding the 9/11 ?

I'm a müslim and was very sorry when that incident happened. However, I did not, do not and will not take the responsibility of what was just another planned, organised, tricky scandal in order to provoke the masses, religions aganist one another. Do you really find the pastor that threatened to burn a Koran sincere? He's just a provocateur for me. There is nothing in the sacred book of Koran mentioning or encouraging terrorist actions or doing what it takes to spread the Islam etc. It just takes to leave the Jay leno show or a football game for a day and spend a couple hours doing a research concerning different religions and 9/11.

Bahahahahahahahaha....ha.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

lol

Read the whole thread, sharpy. It aint't that hard to read and understand what I there wrotecha, eh? I'd like to think not.

I can see why Kicky was sighing.

Kicky: "Why can't people show what goes on in your temples?"

Me: "Because it's sacred and we ask everyone, including members, not to share it and be respectful and because we feel that is something God has commanded us to keep secluded."

So, as I just said, it's blasphemous because God said so according to you.

 

[Archie Moses]

So, as I just said, it's blasphemous because God said so according to you.

Yeah, wise guy!!! Ding Ding Ding!!!! Winner winner chicken dinner. It's blasphemous and offensive to ME because I'M the ONE that BELIEVES it and a God that's revealed it. I'm not saying I'm going to try and stop people from doing stuff like reenacting or exposing temple ceremonies, I'm not that naive. It's just offensive to me and disrespectful being the BELIEVER. I'm not asking YOU to be the believer or say you can't do it, but I'll be damned if you'll try to convince me that it's not offensive because it's not the actual ceremony that goes on in LDS temples like kicky suggests.

When you gonna come out of da closet, Sharpy? Whatcho fraid of?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Now we're getting somewhere.

Here's why "because God said so" is an unacceptable answer. Well, let's not use "unacceptable" because of the absolute connotation. Let's use problematic.

Kicky is looking for the reasoning the church has told its members as a whole to find specific "thing" (by that I mean any particular item, event, etc.) as wholly inclusive and offensive to be shown to non-believers or even portrayed to those not of the faith. There are many "things" in every religion considered sacred that, when replicated either as an item or recreation of an event, is not considered offensive in any way. "God says so" comes across as arbitrary and as a conclusion to answer. What possible reason would there be for God to even consider making such a "thing" offensive. What purpose is there for it?

Now the response I would expect to this would be that you have no intention of questioning "God's will." The problem with that is that religious leaders have been interpreting meaning from perceived religious deities since the beginnings of any particular religion, in Christianity's case, people like Ambrose and Augustine and the apostles and such. Why can't you do that? Why has the church told you that God has seemingly told the founders of the church (or maybe it wasn't always deemed to be offensive within the church; if that's the case, why did it become offensive?) that this event, when recreated and seen by people not fully engrossed in that religion, became offensive. If you only want to reply with the company line, that's fine, but of course that's perceived as quite the underwhelming and unsatisfactory answer.

In short, kicky wants an etic answer to his question, rather than an emic one. It's perhaps too much to ask someone to do such a thing. Asking to do so is like asking a Vanuatu why they have their boys tower jump and being unsatisfied with the answer being, "it makes them men" and not getting any further on subsequent questioning.

 

[sirkickyass]

I other words, you just don't want to accept that answer.

No. My question was about the distinction between "simulating" and "performing" the ceremony publicly. You answered by conflating the two. That's why you got a sigh. Your answer demonstrated that you either didn't understand the question or are purposely being dense about it because you don't know the answer but don't want to admit as much. It's also possible that there is some combination of the two.

You've not engaged the question at all. You're just finding new ways to write the same thing. Similarly you're not engaged at all in the ceremony vs. tokens and signs question.

Being upset over something and stopping someone from doing something are two completely things. You still didn't answer my question. If anything, you avoided it in a snotty nose, know-it-all type of a way.

Archie, my answer is that I don't understand why an Islamic person would be upset about a non-Islamic person drawing a picture of Muhammed either. That's not avoiding the question, that's telling you that I don't know the answer nor do I understand the motivation for trying to constrain others from violating your personal moral code.

As to the snottiness of the response: that's because I took a position on that exact question earlier in the thread. You may note you employed the exact same tone to Darkwing for the purported exact same reason.

 

[sirkickyass]

Now we're getting somewhere.

Here's why "because God said so" is an unacceptable answer. Well, let's not use "unacceptable" because of the absolute connotation. Let's use problematic.

Kicky is looking for the reasoning the church has told its members as a whole to find specific "thing" (by that I mean any particular item, event, etc.) as wholly inclusive and offensive to be shown to non-believers or even portrayed to those not of the faith. There are many "things" in every religion considered sacred that, when replicated either as an item or recreation of an event, is not considered offensive in any way. "God says so" comes across as arbitrary and as a conclusion to answer. What possible reason would there be for God to even consider making such a "thing" offensive. What purpose is there for it?

Now the response I would expect to this would be that you have no intention of questioning "God's will." The problem with that is that religious leaders have been interpreting meaning from perceived religious deities since the beginnings of any particular religion, in Christianity's case, people like Ambrose and Augustine and the apostles and such. Why can't you do that? Why has the church told you that God has seemingly told the founders of the church (or maybe it wasn't always deemed to be offensive within the church; if that's the case, why did it become offensive?) that this event, when recreated and seen by people not fully engrossed in that religion, became offensive. If you only want to reply with the company line, that's fine, but of course that's perceived as quite the underwhelming and unsatisfactory answer.

In short, kicky wants an etic answer to his question, rather than an emic one. It's perhaps too much to ask someone to do such a thing. Asking to do so is like asking a Vanuatu why they have their boys tower jump and being unsatisfied with the answer being, "it makes them men" and not getting any further on subsequent questioning.

This is pretty accurate. I would say that I'm also looking at testing the boundaries of what is offensive.

To that end I've posited two questions:

1) If the prohibition is on "performing" the ceremony publically, why does that render "demonstrations" or "simulations" with no actual religious significance offensive?

2) The formal penalties portion of the ceremony applied to the revealing of "tokens and signs" rather than everything else about the ceremony; seemingly implying that portion of the ceremony is the "secret" part. Is showing the entire ceremony offensive or is it just the tokens and signs that are offensive?

Think of #2 as being similar in form, for example, to precisely the edge that South Park tried to skirt by depicting Mohammad inside a U-Haul or a bear suit and showing only the outside container. At what level of abstraction from the text of the prohibition does something become inoffensive?

 

[NAOS]

I would say that I'm also looking at testing the boundaries of what is offensive.

Careful with that one, dude. Even the tragically hip and hyper-masculine types around here will turn on you. Hell, you're a moderator, you know this is a conservative place when the chips are down.

Also, I know kicky said something about this earlier on, but if you actually follow Big Love (that is, if you know the significance and the emotional timbre of the scene) I think you would have found the temple scene to be done with a very keen artistic eye. This wasn't South Park. The significance of family and salvation were right at the forefront. I thought it was well done. But, as is well documented above, I hate moralizing through representations of any kind...