Or rather yes, I would feel different. Reading comprehension fail.

Thought experiment: would we feel any different if Christopher Hitchens were burning a Bible, Koran, Talmud, Bhagavad Gita, and Book of Mormon together in the same pile?

No. It is the political implications that concern me, not the religious ones.

Why? Why would it do anything more than incite a few unhappy folks to burn some bibles and/or some effigies of Mr. Jones?

Are these folks so incredibly insecure and violent that they will kill people over a simple book burning?

Would you not feel insecure if you were a Muslim? However well you can justify America's current military endeavours, the cold facts are that the US has invaded two Muslim countries in the last ten years, still has troops in both of them, and is openly discussing the merits of attacking a third. So yes, I think it is wise to realise that Muslims do feel pretty insecure about the US.

Perhaps I go to far - I am an atheist and it is an easy trap to fall into; thinking that the texts of a religion have little effect on the actions of its followers.

But we both know that I can give examples of atrocities committed by early Protestants, people who had read every word of the New Testament but still were ready to take fire and the sword against the forces of the "whore of Rome". If you want to delve into some Northern Irish history you can find many recent examples as well.

This is an atheist view, and I don't expect you to agree with it, but I do think religious people tend to cherrypick. I probably exaggerate the tendency to far, but you only have to look at liberal Christians tying themselves in knots to get around the pretty clear biblical prohibition on homosexuality, that their modern morality tells them is simply mistaken, to see that it does exist.

Which is just a longwinded way of saying that I don't agree with the "Islam is by nature evil" view that the comment I was replying to seemed to espouse.

There are 1.3 billion Muslims. Very very few of them flew aeroplanes into the world trade centre, beheaded anyone, or do anything else apart from try to make a life for themselves. Why insult the majority when it is the tiny minority that have sinned? This tiny minority is not offended, they are celebrating the marvellous recruiting opportunity.

Muslim reprisals will explain Islam quite nicely, FORCING the unwilling to understand what they would deny and demonstrating the Clash of Civilizations.

Why on Earth would you want to provoke a clash like that? I don't deny it is a possibility if the lunatics are allowed to dominate the debate, but why anyone would want such a situation... Do you dream of standing amid the ruins of cities saying, "look, I was right"?

The problem I have with your argument is it is the opposite used by those who are OK with the Mosque in N.Y. Even though it offends millions of people, it is defended as Constitutionally protected. Yet here today, we read in this forum how this man has no Constitutional protection and what he is doing is offensive to Muslims. You can't have it both ways.

My understanding is that he is very much constitutionally protected - you wouldn't see the entire American military, religious and political (left AND right) leadership begging him to desist if they could just ban the protest. If you just mean Rackspace, you have to respect their rights as well.

For the record, I'm not to clear on the details (is it a mosque? how close is it to ground zero?) but I'm no fan of it. It seems a needless provocation.

The left on this site offend Christians on a daily basis so it is really funny to see so many of you upset because some guy is going to offend Muslims. Hypocrites.

Disagree. The comparison should be an Iranian, say, insulting Islam. I think you'd find the same people cheering that as cheer insulting Christianity. This is a political issue rather than religious, although it is religious sensibilities that are being insulted.

Crusades 700 years ago. Muslim Terrorist terrorizing the world TODAY!

I'm no fan of radical Islam, but try to look at it from their point of view. Who's armies are in who's countries? You can come out with as much justification as you please, but you have to accept that invading someone's country is always extremely unpopular. In this situation it is simple common sense not to also insult their religion.

Perhaps I overstate - I certainly don't have any ability to guess what over a billion people are thinking on an issue.

I have been reading a fair amount of (English language) Muslim news reports on this issue though, some with reader comments, and I've just got the impression of an enormous disconnect between how America views its own actions and the way they are viewed in the Muslim world. Not a question if intelligence certainly, or even of education. Simply of narrative.

Look at Iran for example - the Mad Mullahs of American nightmares, but if you look at Iranian history from their perspective it isn't hard to see why they are paranoid about US (and British) intentions and motives. Invasion by Britain in 1941, democratically elected government overthrown by the US in 1953, strong US opposition to their revolution with multiple crisis, culminating in open US support for Iraq when Iraq started the horrendously bloody Iran-Iraq war. And it has just kept ticking over from there with more US military action on its borders, until we are at the point where America is basically openly debating the merits of military action against Iran in the present day.

Against that sort of backdrop, it is hardly surprising that a US church planning to burn the Koran is not immediately dismissed as a first amendment issue. There is a larger narrative to judge it against, and you can see how it seems to fit right in.

That would be ok with you then?

If I posted something so dire that I got the entire military and political leadership of the US to personally beg me to stop...? I'd ban myself.

I see where you are coming from, but you are looking at it from a freedom of speech/US constitution basis.

The "Muslim world" is not doing so. They look at it from a historical/geo-political basis, bound up with what seems to many a very convincing narrative of US arrogance and hatred of Islam.

Obama has received formal letters from several heads of state asking him to prevent this from happening. I assume they know as well as he does that he does not have the power to do so, but the average Muslim-in-the-street? Especially with so many demagogues willing to twist any situation?

US relations with the Muslim world are fraught with enormous misperceptions on both sides. A US church burning the Koran is really really unhelpful at this point from whatever way you look at it.

Any religion that would cause random followers to act so hostily to strangers cuz a fucking book is burned is really crazy. I bet they can burn Bibles and not very many Christians iwll form mobs and/or kill someone.

It is one of the things I respect most about modern Christianity - their ability to tolerate or ignore the sacrilegious. It isn't anything to do with the religion though, it is a fairly recent development from a historical point of view.

I'm a christian and an American, yet I don't get offended when I see people burning bibles or American flags; I look at them like they're idiots. Sure, the symbolism of their action is bad, but it's still just a book - it's nothing I'm going to lose sleep over.

Good for you, if there were more people like you the world would be a better place. I'm sure you recognise however that many of your countrymen do not feel the same way.

Any nation that wants a cordial relationship with the people of the united states is well advised to avoid incidents of burning the US flag and bibles. This would be true times a thousand if the nation in question had 100,000 of their troops within US borders engaged in fighting an insurgency comprised at least in a large part of US citizens.

I wonder - would you be opposed to burning Bible as well? You know, based on the same principles?

By a Muslim group? Yes I would see it as a provocative insult, same way as I see burning the US flag. It is a pointless display, and indicates a profound inability to think on the part of the perpetrator.

And you are fine with the dumbf*ck who wants a mosque in NYC, because it sure as shit doesn't matter when THEY insult Americans.

I've heard responses to this along the lines of "it's not a mosque, and it's not at ground zero", but I'm actually not to sure of the facts on this. If it actually is a mosque at ground zero then no, it seems an unnecessary provocation by SOME Muslims and I don't approve.

But no one is guaranteed freedom from being offended. If people decide to go off and do something violent just because they were offended, then they are clearly in the wrong, and THAT is the behavior that needs to be checked. Being overtly offensive is less than good, and it should be discouraged, but being violent simply because you are offended is something that should be stopped, controlled, prevented, etc. Attempting to control others' behavior via the expressed threat that, should their behavior offend you, you will become violent, is also something that should not be tolerated. You know, unless you are a government.

I'd have some sympathy for that argument (while still thinking the guy was a dick) if this was a domestic US dispute, and the insulted parties were US all citizens.

But you can't just ignore the global situation - which does lets face it include large US armies in two Muslim countries. Without getting into the rights and wrongs of those wars, you must admit that they are perceived very badly in much of the Muslim world. Telling Muslims that they shouldn't be offended by the deliberate desecration of their holy book because it is this nutter's first amendment right... doesn't really cut it in my opinion.