Quran burning called off
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
I'm not sure how you can have a nice discussion with another religious leader when you basically say, "Well, you see, there IS a time and a place to burn the holiest of your religious documents. We just decided that we're a little busy this weekend."
This entire episode has essentially proven his thesis - that Islam (or more accurately, a significant number of Muslims) are more inherently violent by definition. He didn't even need to actually complete the act, just suggest it.
Could you imagine a similar outcry of defense for any other segment of the population? Buddhists? Christians? Atheists? Republicans? Women? Germans?
We all know full well that Islamic sub-movements (properly representative or not) will lash out violently at a Koran burning (or Mohammed cartoon) in ways that other belief systems wouldn't even consider.
How does this not directly support the crazy pastor's statement?
In the last few weeks we've seen half the country get all up in arms (whipped up by the right-wing media) about a mosque 2 whole frickin blocks away from ground zero. In a condemned Burlington Coat Factory. Meanwhile, a bunch of other nutjobs are now asking to be praised for their moderation in not running out and burning a bunch of Qurans just to piss people off. All this during Ramadan, to boot.
So, my unofficial scorekeeping has christians as way crazier than muslims for the last few weeks.
A Christian religious leader threatens an act of aggression against a sacred text to make someone else do his bidding, and that somehow proves Muslims are violent??