News Gainesville Reverend Plans To Burn Qu'ran

[Ivan Seeking]

The last time I checked, this was still a free country. If the man wants to burn him some books, he is free to burn all the books he can afford - and of any variety or type.

No doubt, he is free to burn books, and we are free to criticize him as the irresponsible, misguided, and cowardly fool that he is.

What is sad is that this pock mark on the face of humanity gets so much attention.

 

[drankin]

So what's worse, burning the quran or murdering the individual that burns it? Sure, he is antagonising murderous religious zealots, but that isn't a crime. I think he should burn a bible too just to be fair, but it's not my party.

 

[cronxeh]

Well now.. he is just as important as anybody else. For that matter, howcome nobody ever questions me for CNN? I have crazy ideas too

 

[Char. Limit]

Sure, he is antagonising murderous religious zealots, but that isn't a crime.

It's not a crime, but I believe that it is a defense.

 

[apeiron]

I'll post more when I'm not posting from a BlackBerry, but
apeiron (and anyone else who agrees with him), are you saying that the killing of this pastor by any random Muslim would be justifiable based on the principle of asymetric warfare?

Why would I be saying that?

You commented on an asymmetry of religious wackos. I suggested you think deeper about the causes of such an asymmetry. Look at the geopolitics rather than blaming the religions involved.

Uneducated fundamentalist US rednecks can be just as dangerous as their equivalents in any other country. It is just that they are not being recruited for someone's army at the moment.

So I'm disturbed that you continue to make such facile arguments in what is meant to be an educated political forum.

 

[drankin]

Uneducated fundamentalist US rednecks can be just as dangerous as their equivalents in any other country.

We have our occasion lone wackos but there has NEVER been a group of "Uneducated fundamentalist US rednecks" that has hijacked a plane, caused thousands of deaths in a single terrorist act, videotaped beheadings... not even comparable, but nice try.

 

[DaveC426913]

We have our occasion lone wackos but there has NEVER been a group of "Uneducated fundamentalist US rednecks" that has hijacked a plane, caused thousands of deaths in a single terrorist act, videotaped beheadings... not even comparable, but nice try.

Really? You're going to put up a scoreboard?

OK, well how about cross-burning and lynchings?

Or do you have a threshold of 'bad enough'?

 

[drankin]

Really? You're going to put up a scoreboard?

OK, well how about cross-burning and lynchings?

Cross burning? Come on.

Lynchings? Are you kidding? When was the last lynching? Let's stick to this century.

Yes, let's keep a scoreboard, but the cross burning doesn't really crossover to anyone of my examples.

 

[DaveC426913]

When was the last lynching? Let's stick to this century.

Perhaps you should check your facts first. Or your math...

Yes, let's keep a scoreboard, but the cross burning doesn't really crossover to anyone of my examples.

So, yes then. You have a threshold, below which racist murder is acceptable, but above which, you find it intolerable.

Got it.

 

[turbo]

Remember the Oklahoma City bombing? McVeigh did not act alone. What about religious fundamentalists that terrorize providers and clients at abortion clinics and assassinate doctors? Christians have bad actors, too. This should not devolve into an exercise in relativism.

 

[drankin]

Perhaps you should check your facts first. Or your math...



So, yes then. You have a threshold, below which racist murder is acceptable, but above which, you find it intolerable.

Got it.

Nice try, Dave. Way to pull a race card. Your conclusions are distorted. Redneck terrorism does not even compare to the scale of that terrorism Islamic extremists have committed. To suggest otherwise is... wierd.

 

[JaredJames]

Slightly off topic, but something I feel has relevance here:

What about terrorists (or any groups) that commit crimes and have nothing to do with religious groups?

I don't know any numbers regarding how many 'terrorist acts' are committed without the cover of religion, perhaps someone could provide some numbers.

It seems everyone is Religion A vs Religion B (which is the subject of this thread), but seeing as it is digressing into general talks not specific to this thread, I think people should consider acts by those who are not acting under religion.

I think this debate is becoming, how bad is each religion, so why not throw in some numbers which would compare terrorism with religion and terrorism without. So it can be gauged if religion is a strong cause for these acts (as opposed to money, assets etc as point out earlier) or whether it just the cover used.

 

[JaredJames]

For the record, I disagree with what this guy is doing as it is clearly an attempt at getting a reaction from Islam as a religion, with nothing to do with the terrorists themselves.

 

[apeiron]

We have our occasion lone wackos but there has NEVER been a group of "Uneducated fundamentalist US rednecks" that has hijacked a plane, caused thousands of deaths in a single terrorist act, videotaped beheadings... not even comparable, but nice try.

Err, you conveniently missed the bit about wackos being cynically recruited to a geopolitical cause. So as you say, nice try.

There is certainly a demographic in the US who could be recruited as the likes of Timothy McVeigh surely demonstrated.

 

[Char. Limit]

Slightly off topic, but something I feel has relevance here:

What about terrorists (or any groups) that commit crimes and have nothing to do with religious groups?

I think this debate is becoming, how bad is each religion, so why not throw in some numbers which would compare terrorism with religion and terrorism without. So it can be gauged if religion is a strong cause for these acts (as opposed to money, assets etc as point out earlier) or whether it just the cover used.

Well, here is a list of terrorist incidents in Great Britain, the vast majority of which were committed by the Irish Republican Army, a non-religious terrorist group.

I don't know of any others, but I'm certain there is. Human nature is to hate what is not like yourself, be that religion, race, and of course nationality (like the IRA).

 

[apeiron]

I think this debate is becoming, how bad is each religion, so why not throw in some numbers which would compare terrorism with religion and terrorism without. So it can be gauged if religion is a strong cause for these acts (as opposed to money, assets etc as point out earlier) or whether it just the cover used.

That is absolutely the point here. A "christian" is pulling a stunt to make it seem that some kind of religious war is going on here. People like Russ and Drankin seem to be falling for it.

In the minds of the people pulling the strings - the terrorist groups, the governments on the other side - it is just an asymmetric power struggle.

Well, maybe Bush did represent the "we're fighting the evil infidel" school of thought . Maybe like Russ he did believe in world painted black and white.

But then Bush wasn't really pulling the strings was he? He seemed more like one of those dangerous fundamentalists recruited by a geopolitical cause. A lot of death and destruction certainly resulted from the guy's ability to initiate military action.

Who needs a McVeigh, or even a whole photocopied squad of brainwashed McVeighs, when you have a Dubya safely tucked in your corporate pocket?

 

[JaredJames]

Char. Limit, an interesting list. Thank you.

 

[drankin]

Err, you conveniently missed the bit about wackos being cynically recruited to a geopolitical cause. So as you say, nice try.

There is certainly a demographic in the US who could be recruited as the likes of Timothy McVeigh surely demonstrated.

McVeigh recruited himself and Nichols. He was not religiously motivated, which is the point.

If anyone is murdered over this guy burning the Quran, it definitely would be RELIGIOUSLY motivated.

If an imam burned a bible it may hurt some peoples feelings but that's about it.

 

[nismaratwork]

I hope we can all agree on this analogy -

This pastor : Christians :: 9-11 terrorists : Muslims

No, because I believe that this pastor is:

1: Doing this for publicity and
2: Likely to back down...

... that's a win for him. Who would have heard of this jackass if not for this, right? He'd never have been on CNN or Fox or anything else for that matter. Then again, maybe he's really certifiable, and he's going to really do it... the fool.

Finally: 3: He's not killing anyone by his own hand. It's one thing to potentially create risk for yourself and others, it's another to take down planes and skyscrapers.

Now, if you make it "Doctors who perform abortions killers/Gay bashers and killers etc...:Christians :: 9-11 terrorists : Muslims, then yes, I'd agree. If you just meant that he is no more representative of Christians as a whole than the hijackers were of Muslims as a whole, I agree with that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistance_Army

Yeah, I'm familiar with those psychotics, and that kind of thing really makes me glad I'm not a gay Ugandan... and make me despair for the human race.

The last time I checked, this was still a free country. If the man wants to burn him some books, he is free to burn all the books he can afford - and of any variety or type.

True, and people can run around calling every black person they meet 'the n-word', but I wouldn't recommend the practice. What I find absolutely hilarious is that many people making the "they have the right" argument are blasting the same argument regarding the Muslim community center in NYC. I have no idea what your stance is on that, so let me be clear that your comment is just a springboard for mine, and I am NOT commenting on what you may or may not believe.

The "have the right, but should they" argument has been tossed around a lot in the media and public lately regarding this cultural center. In my view, it's a silly use of that argument which reflects a kind of hysteria. On the other hand, that argument really DOES apply to this book-burning. I don't disagree that in both cases there isn't a legal leg to stand on in opposing the actions, but for the sake of their own longevity, never mind possible incitement to violence overseas, you'd think the "should" question might be a relevant one.

I have no issues with burning a flag of any given country, including my own, but I don't do it just because I can. I don't care, because I recognize it as a symbol and nothing magical, but I don't burn it for the exact same reason... plus I have some respect for those who DO believe otherwise.

In the same way, I'm an atheist, pure and simple, so bibles and qurans and torahs and vedic scriptures etc. don't mean anything to me, but out of simple respect I wouldn't burn any of them. The only reason I can think to do it, would be to really REALLY upset (read: piss off) someone or some group, and that's a pretty lousy reason to do anything. Clearly this is a publicity stunt, and if they were to do the same thing in the middle of a muslim rally maybe the argument could be made that they are attempting to incite violence... but this is to diffuse to make that argument.

On the flipside, it's pretty stunning that some idiot in Florida can do something that would cause VIOLENCE overseas. I have no doubt that images of this burning will be in Al Qaeda recruitment videos for years to come, so it's pretty unfortunate, and it will help some really crazy overseas politicians. Oh well.

Drankin: There are plenty of nutcase Christians out there, and the fact that they shoot doctors one at a time, or road-haul a gay boy to death one at a time just says they don't have the same organization. If I walked into a baptist revival in rural Georgia, and burned a christian bible I'd probably be lucky to make it out alive.

 

[Char. Limit]

If an imam burned a bible it may hurt some peoples feelings but that's about it.

We don't know that. In fact, I think that's a dangerous assumption to make. I can think of more than a few people who would react dangerously to an imam burning a bible.

Note that I'm not talking about bible-burning in general. But if an imam were to burn a bible, I think that Pastor Jones for one would be trying to kill him, among many other wackos.

 

[nismaratwork]

McVeigh recruited himself and Nichols. He was not religiously motivated, which is the point.

If anyone is murdered over this guy burning the Quran, it definitely would be RELIGIOUSLY motivated.

If an imam burned a bible it may hurt some peoples feelings but that's about it.

Well, christians don't believe that the bible is the literal and unadulterated word of their god for one thing. For another, what flavor of christian?... Catholic? Baptist? Episcopalian? Anglican?... you get my drift. Have you traveled in the USA "hick" south, because I find it easy to believe that such an Imam (living in the states) would have to watch his back. Hell, I'll bet this guy who's building the center "near ground zero" has to watch his back.

There's a fallacy in your reasoning too... there are terrorist organizations which send people around the world for radical islam, but christian terrorism seems to be local whether it's in the USA deep south, or Uganda. Remember also that a lot of the anger between the west and the "islamic world" has to do with political issues, and religion is the last straw in any given situation. In countries where the situation is reversed, you see the violence reversed and christians kill muslims.

 

[nismaratwork]

Well, here is a list of terrorist incidents in Great Britain, the vast majority of which were committed by the Irish Republican Army, a non-religious terrorist group.

I don't know of any others, but I'm certain there is. Human nature is to hate what is not like yourself, be that religion, race, and of course nationality (like the IRA).

You have a better point than you know, because the IRA is nationalist and factional in terms of religion. The IRA is CATHOLIC, against the PROTESTANT organizations and GB. There is definitely a religious component there, but it's easy for westerners to understand. There are similar granularities in Muslim-West/Christian/Hindu... relations, but far fewer people who are native English speakers seem to be aware of them.

 

[apeiron]

McVeigh recruited himself and Nichols. He was not religiously motivated, which is the point.

If anyone is murdered over this guy burning the Quran, it definitely would be RELIGIOUSLY motivated.

If an imam burned a bible it may hurt some peoples feelings but that's about it.

Let's keep the debates separate.

Is there an asymmetric war going on here - that was the question I was addressing.

Is this reverend treating it as a war between religions - yes, but he is an idiot redneck.

Is al Qaeda rushing to assemble a hit squad of suicide bombers because a koran burning by some inconsequential nobody matters so much to them and their objectives?

No. They are probably wondering how they can get more such idiots throwing fuel on the fires that feed their cause. They are saying thank you Pastor Jones, you are truly doing the lord's work <snigger>.

 

[Char. Limit]

You have a better point than you know, because the IRA is nationalist and factional in terms of religion. The IRA is CATHOLIC, against the PROTESTANT organizations and GB. There is definitely a religious component there, but it's easy for westerners to understand. There are similar granularities in Muslim-West/Christian/Hindu... relations, but far fewer people who are native English speakers seem to be aware of them.

I don't know about Hinduism, but I assume that you're referencing the Sunni-Shiite divide? That's one of the few examples I know... great history there too.

I knew that the IRA was mostly Catholic, but I just chalked that up to the fact that their source population (Ireland) is mostly Catholic. I didn't know that the religious component was actually important.

 

[drankin]

Let's keep the debates separate.

Is there an asymmetric war going on here - that was the question I was addressing.

Is this reverend treating it as a war between religions - yes, but he is an idiot redneck.

Is al Qaeda rushing to assemble a hit squad of suicide bombers because a koran burning by some inconsequential nobody matters so much to them and their objectives?

No. They are probably wondering how they can get more such idiots throwing fuel on the fires that feed their cause. They are saying thank you Pastor Jones, you are truly doing the lord's work <snigger>.

You are making a few more assumptions than even I am. I am willing to make a friendly wager that there will be chaos just like the Danish cartoon fiasco of 2005 if this guy goes through with it. Rednecks just don't carry out mass protests in the streets over cartoons and bible burnings. There is a distinction that many choose to ignore.

 

[Blue_Jaunte]

I'm continually amazed that this is getting the kind of coverage it is. I just can't imagine why this is somehow extraordinary or even remotely newsworthy. Certainly SOMEone makes a big show of burning a koran every week, somewhere in America.

And I lived in Gainesville for 6 years, so [insert bogus reason why my opinion should matter more than other people's because of my mere proximity to the topic of discussion].

 

[arunma]

We don't know that. In fact, I think that's a dangerous assumption to make. I can think of more than a few people who would react dangerously to an imam burning a bible.

Note that I'm not talking about bible-burning in general. But if an imam were to burn a bible, I think that Pastor Jones for one would be trying to kill him, among many other wackos.

Respectfully, are you sure about this? If you take a look at the shots that people on American TV take at Christianity, it's analogous to Quran-burning. Jesus is at least as respected to Christians as the Quran is to Muslims. People in the American media make all kinds of jokes about Jesus getting drunk, Jesus having sex, etc. This probably ticks off Christians as much as burning the Quran ticks off Muslims. And yet I've never seen Pastor Jones make death threats against American comedians (as evidenced by the fact that I haven't even heard about him until now).

Yes, there does exist a non-zero number of Christians who have the same tendancies as terrorists. But I think this is an example of too low a signal to noise ratio. I almost once got punched in the face by an atheist for saying that Richard Dawkins is a jackass. Does this mean that atheism causes even a mild tendency towards violent behavior? In the Christian American culture, terroristic behavior of almost any kind is denounced. Just today in my university's newspaper, I read an article by an undergraduate student who is an evangelical Christian (this person believes that Muslims are going to hell) who said that burning the Quran is disrespectful and that it's important for Christians to love Muslims. But very rarely, if ever, do we hear from the moderate Islamic community.

And that, I think, is the salient point that needs to be here. Every religion has its share of terrorists. But what separates Islam from all other religions in the world (that I can think of, anyway) is that while other religious communities denounce their terrorists, you don't see that kind of accountability in Islam. Now, someone might rightly point out that in the Islamic world, sharia prohibits the average Muslim from speaking out against the imams and Islamic scholars, and any dissenters will be quickly silenced. That excuse works in the Middle East and maybe even in Africa. But what excuse to American and European Muslims have? We live in a country where it is safe to be anti-semitic, to burn the sacred text of Muslims, or to defame the sacred figure of Christianity, without any fear of government censure. Surely it is even safer to denounce such behavior. Instead we see Comedy Central being threatened by American Muslims, and we see European Muslims assassinating an anti-Islam artist.

For some reason everyone wants to be politically correct when it comes to Islam. But I have to ask: where are these moderate Muslims that everyone is talking about? Why are they conveniently silent while the terrorists defame their allegedly peaceful religion? Maybe they just have bad PR. But I think it's more likely that Islam is distinct from other religions in that it does encourage violence and terrorism. It seems telling, to me, that Muslims are reacting to a Quran-burner with the same indignance that the civilized world is to the proposed execution (by stoning) of the woman in Iran for adultery. Add to that the fact that no one threatened violence against Iranian Muslims if they proceeded with the stoning. Seriously, don't these guys have better things to get offended over?

My point here is that there is a strong assymetry between Islamic and non-Islamic whackos. Fred Phelps, Pastor Jones, Pat Robertson, or whoever else, is not analogous to Islamic terrorists.

 

[D H]

You must be reading the analogy differently than I am... I thought of...

[Pastor Jones] is representative of [Christians] as [the 9-11 terrorists] are representative of [Muslims]

So, if you're willing to accept the idea that the 9-11 terrorists are representative of Muslims, and many Christians are, then you must logically accept the idea that Pastor Jones is representative of Christians.

Using that logic you must also agree with

Mother Theresa : Christians :: 9-11 terrorists : Muslims

 

[apeiron]

I knew that the IRA was mostly Catholic, but I just chalked that up to the fact that their source population (Ireland) is mostly Catholic. I didn't know that the religious component was actually important.

The IRA in fact had some protestant members. But religious persecution was of course a backdrop issue.

In the old days, states were quite closely identified with their official religions and so wars could be "religious". Need we mention the crusades?

This is indeed a distinctive trait of Islam and Christianity that make them so similar - a creed of aggressive conversion that justifies wars of domination. Other religions, such as buddhism in particular, are happy to assimilate ideas. The stress is on submission and co-operation.

Getting back to the IRA, it was an asymmetric war against a colonising, dominating, force. If you feel oppressed as a social group, colonised, then it is only natural to push back.

It is not about hatred. After the heat of battle, we can all sit down together - so long as the conflict had a rational basis and so a rational outcome was possible.

This is the danger of all the fundamentalist thinking being expressed by some here. You cannot negotiate a peace unless it is recognised what the rational basis of the conflict was all about.

You can of course just decide to colonise an area because access to its resources is non negotiable in your eyes. But it is hypocritical to then be surprised that humans have a natural reaction to such attempts at domination.

 

[nismaratwork]

Using that logic you must also agree with

Mother Theresa : Christians :: 9-11 terrorists : Muslims

No, by that logic I'd say that: Mother Theresa : Christians :: Gandhi : Hindus (can't think of a similar muslim figure, but that's probably my error). There's "atypical, nasty-atypical, and nice-atypical".

I don't know about Hinduism, but I assume that you're referencing the Sunni-Shiite divide? That's one of the few examples I know... great history there too.

I knew that the IRA was mostly Catholic, but I just chalked that up to the fact that their source population (Ireland) is mostly Catholic. I didn't know that the religious component was actually important.

Well for Hinduism I'm thinking for one of the issues in India and Pakistan, both between nations and with their own ethnic and religious populations.

For the IRA, AFAIK the IRA is catholic, period. It's always been "the orange and the green", as in the "Protestant/British Orange" and the "Catholic/Irish Green". It's a big deal, probably most like (although I don't believe justifiably so) Al Qaeda's anger about US bases in the middle east. Obviously the latter is hardly an occupation, but in terms of the religious component it's similar.

 

[apeiron]

Rednecks just don't carry out mass protests in the streets over cartoons and bible burnings. There is a distinction that many choose to ignore.

I hear they don't even string negros from the trees for miscegenation anymore. An almost buddhist calm has descended on middle america hasn't it?

Sorry, I shouldn't respond. It is clear you are not interested in the real world of power politics.

 

[nismaratwork]

The IRA in fact had some protestant members. But religious persecution was of course a backdrop issue.

In the old days, states were quite closely identified with their official religions and so wars could be "religious". Need we mention the crusades?

This is indeed a distinctive trait of Islam and Christianity that make them so similar - a creed of aggressive conversion that justifies wars of domination. Other religions, such as buddhism in particular, are happy to assimilate ideas. The stress is on submission and co-operation.

Getting back to the IRA, it was an asymmetric war against a colonising, dominating, force. If you feel oppressed as a social group, colonised, then it is only natural to push back.

It is not about hatred. After the heat of battle, we can all sit down together - so long as the conflict had a rational basis and so a rational outcome was possible.

This is the danger of all the fundamentalist thinking being expressed by some here. You cannot negotiate a peace unless it is recognised what the rational basis of the conflict was all about.

You can of course just decide to colonise an area because access to its resources is non negotiable in your eyes. But it is hypocritical to then be surprised that humans have a natural reaction to such attempts at domination.

re: bolded portion, I'd add that plenty of religions want neither conversion nor new ideas, but to be left alone. Hasidic Jews spring readily to mind there, but many others do as well.

 

[nismaratwork]

I hear they don't even string negros from the trees for miscegenation anymore. An almost buddhist calm has descended on middle america hasn't it?

Sorry, I shouldn't respond. It is clear you are not interested in the real world of power politics.

That's the best post I've read all day.

 

[arunma]

I don't know about Hinduism, but I assume that you're referencing the Sunni-Shiite divide? That's one of the few examples I know... great history there too.

Sunni-Shiite is an Islamic division. If I remember correctly, the Sunnis believe that the son of Mohammad is his successor, and the Shiites believe that the Caliphate is (someone correct me if I'm wrong). That division occurred shortly after the death of Mohammad, and persists until today.

Hinduism doesn't have any such divide, but there are issues with Hindus and Muslims over a variety of issues in India. And then there's the whole India-Pakistan conflict. It's hard to pin that down as either religious or political. The creation of Pakistan was a product of religious division, but for the most part Hindus and Muslims in India seem to get along.

 

[Gokul43201]

Hah! Just heard on NPR that Merkel gave some kind of Press Freedom award to Kurt Westergaard, the Danish cartoonist. What an interesting coincidence!

 

[Gokul43201]

There's "atypical, nasty-atypical, and nice-atypical".

Why differentiate between 'nice' and 'nasty' but not between 'mildly annoying whacko' and 'mass murdering global terrorist outfit'?

 

[nismaratwork]

Hah! Just heard on NPR that Merkel gave some kind of Press Freedom award to Kurt Westergaard, the Danish cartoonist. What an interesting coincidence!

Heh, I'm really glad that I don't live in Gainesville right now... I'd feel like an intra AND international hick now.

 

[apeiron]

We live in a country where it is safe to be anti-semitic, to burn the sacred text of Muslims, or to defame the sacred figure of Christianity, without any fear of government censure. Surely it is even safer to denounce such behavior. Instead we see Comedy Central being threatened by American Muslims, and we see European Muslims assassinating an anti-Islam artist.

No, no. You live in a country that is proud of free speech and so makes it a point of pride that it can live with acts symbolic of free speech, such as burning the US flag, or airing South Park. And now burning another religion's bible.

That is your system and it is what you are motivated to defend (as opposed to some particular religion that some americans might practice).

But your system does not allow for free physical attacks on its citizens. So while it is "good" that a pastor can burn a koran, it would be "bad" if the pastor burnt a muslim. At least if the muslim was a fellow US citizen, not collateral civilian damage in some distance country.

Why is there so much difficulty with joined up thinking on this subject?

 

[lisab]

I hear they don't even string negros from the trees for miscegenation anymore. An almost buddhist calm has descended on middle america hasn't it?

Sorry, I shouldn't respond. It is clear you are not interested in the real world of power politics.

apeiron, I'm curious, how much have you traveled in the US?

 

[nismaratwork]

Why differentiate between 'nice' and 'nasty' but not between 'mildly annoying whacko' and 'mass murdering global terrorist outfit'?

Hell yes, but then keep in mind that I didn't agree with the original comparison. See my post https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2872075&postcount=69

 

[nismaratwork]

apeiron, I'm curious, how much have you traveled in the US?

I think I can see what you're driving at, so let me regale you with a recent experience. I'm male, and not black... I travel a lot in the south/southwest. A bit less than a year ago in Georgia, in a room full of other white guys, I was treated to this "joke". I was one of only 3 people out of over 20 who didn't laugh.

"What's the difference between a n***** and a jackrabbit? Give up? A n***** can jump higher and the rabbits smarter!" Laughter proceeds. This is definitely an improvement from 23 years ago, when I was traveling in Mississippi, rural, and stopped for directions at a gas station. The manager/owner/white-hick, without pause turned and said, "Hey n*****, can yah help this boy on his way?". A black mechanic came out, and did, never batting an eye, while I tried not to flinch or floor the gas from shock.

I've never seen anyone lynched or road-hauled, but for everyday occurrences, I'd say apeiron's general point stands. There are places you DO NOT GO, if you're black in the south (and no, I don't mean country clubs), just like I wouldn't wear hat with the confederate flag on it in the heart of Harlem at night.

 

[Evo]

Wow, I had to go to the doctor and there are three pages of new posts?

Closed while I catch up.