Burning of the Koran.

[Vilified]

I'm not sure if any of you know this, but there is a man in Florida who has the Muslim Koran. This man is threatening to burn it on 9/11, which I guess we can all assume why(WTC, and mosque on Ground Zero. Naturally, all the Muslims are outraged. I think it was today, Hilary Clinton called him and talked him out of it.

Do you guys think he should have gone through with it? I feel like the whole mosque on Ground Zero was a huge slap in the face to Americans everywhere, maybe it's our turn to do the same? But then again, I feel like two wrongs don't make a right.

Lord knows, they all deserve it.

 

[Rainbow Retch]

I'm glad he chose not to burn the book. It's highly disrespectful to their religion and their freedom to practice, though I also don't appreciate the mosque being built there. If the Muslims start to see retaliation and outrage over the mosque being built, they'll get the reaction they want.  

[Underworld Priestess]

I agree with the above post.  

[Lord Izaran]

While it absolutely is his right to do so...I am against it for two key reasons.

1) This is NOT the time with tensions running high. Some of the people in this world who practice murder and violence as religious rite.

2) I despise the destruction of books of any sort. Even the Satanic Bible is a book, and as such ought not to be destroyed. Locked away perhaps, but not destroyed.  

[Hallie Neko-chan]

Thing is, 9/11 was carried out by a few extremists from that Religion.

It's just like hundreds of years ago when Bloody Mary executed countless Protestants in the name of the Catholic religion.

Both were extremist actions and neither should have blame placed on the actual religion itself. It doesn't represent the views of the majority practising.

That said, the muslims who want to build that mosque are also considered "American" as well since our country allows "freedom of religion". So it's not necessarily a slap in the face.  

[Underworld Priestess]

In England in the 1500s, and during Bloody Mary's reign, the country was in constant religious turmoil because with every monarch the national religion changed. Mary's father changed the Church of England several times but in the end was Catholic, his son was Protestant, Queen Jane was Protestant and then Mary was Catholic. England was basically in a religious war and by accounts from the era when the Catholics put the host back in the churches after Edward and Jane it angered the Protestants, it was a "slap in the face" to the Protestants and caused revolts to place another Protestant Queen on the throne, Elizabeth I. The "extremist" burnings just added fuel to the fire between the two and all of that added to the animosity between the two sides.
So now comparing that to current happenings, no matter if you want to say it is the religion or not, the anger will still be there. Building a mosque there is like when they put the host in a Protestant churches during the 1500s. It would be something done by people, not the religion, but it still isn't the right thing to do.  

[BarryKlob]

What I want to know is why it's okay to burn the flag, but not okay to burn the koran.  

[Lysander the silent]

BarryKlob, the difference is that the US flag is not a religious symbol.

I was against this one hundred percent. First of all, as the above stated, it would have made tensions even higher between our country and the rest of the world. As for the mosque on ground zero, I am completely against it being placed in that area for a couple reasons. One, its only ten years after the 9/11 attacks, people are still suffering from the trauma of losing loved ones in the buildings and in the recovery efforts. Two, the man planning to build the mosques has said in several interviews that America was an "accessory" to the 9/11 attacks, basically accusing us of instigating it, which we did not do.

As for the extremism. Being Catholic, I tend to stand back and look on history to make my judgements. As far as Christianity and Islam goes, both have had their share of nutcases. In Catholicism's case, it was Pope Alexander who tried to expand the church's influence, and then there were the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. And, initially, the rapid expansion of Islam when they killed or converted who they considered "infidels", and of course, the radicalism that currently has a hold on a portion of their religion. (note that I don't state that it has a hold on it all.) As a result, I come to the conclusion that any religion that claims to "have God/Allah", be wary of them and make sure you are alert at all times.

Also: historically, Muslims have a tendency to build a mosque on the site of conquered territory, so that is another fact to point out on the side.