You know, it occurs to me that we are doing this all backwards.
We should set up a factory with armed guards, a printshop that does nothing but produce authentic versions of the Koran. Then put in a conveyor belt to a furnace.
We stop printing and burning Korans when they stop inflicting terror on the rest of the world.
Well, the pastor of Dove Center took my advice.
He's leveraged the threat to burn a Quran into a promise to move the 9/11 Mosque.
It's the only thing that works.
I wonder what this Baptist preacher in Nebraska will be able to get done?
Now he's threatening to burn a Quran...
Oh, HERE'S a shocker.
The Muslim may have lied to Pastor Jones about moving the mosque.
So now the pastor is thinking about barbecue again.
Sir, in the spirit of ecumenism, I'll spot you the matches.
More groups piling on the bandwagon in favor.
Everyone is putting out essays against burning the Koran.
I'm publicly asking someone to explain this to me because I truly don't get it.
When the Council of Nicaea burned Arius' works, was that council acting sinfully? After all, the rejection of Arianism created a centuries-long set of difficulties for the Church, including frequent armed violence. Heck, St. Nicholas punched Arius on the floor of the council and, after the council threw St. Nicholas into jail, God and the Blessed Virgin REWARDED him for having violently defended the Faith.
When the Council of Constance not only burned the works of Jan Hus, but also burned Hus, was that Council acting sinfully? This act started the Hussite Wars, which not only raged for a decade but also introduced gunpowder into warfare in Europe.
Granted, the man burning the Koran today is a cult leader. But, given the history of the Catholic Church, exactly what is wrong with burning the Koran?
Can't be threat of violence - every council that burned heretical works had to deal with that.
Can't be the sacredness of the text to others - Arius' works were considered holy and righteous by his followers.
Can't be the sacredness intrinsic to the text - there isn't any.
So, instead of just assuming that burning the Koran is wrong, could someone please explain what the difficulty is?
I've heard people say that his motives are evil. OK. I wouldn't know, since I don't live in the man's head, and I only have news accounts to go by. But what I've heard doesn't indicate that his motives are evil. He simply doesn't want to be Muslim, nor does he want America to be Muslim. Color me evil, but I kind of agree with him on those points.
So, I've yet to see an explanation that wouldn't also condemn about half the ecumenical councils of the Church, along with the entire 600-year history of the Holy Office.