Fanning the flames of prejudice isn't a good thing. But sometimes it can be a whole lot of fun. Maybe that's the thinking of this Florida minister:
Burn a Koran Day
Now here we've got a minister who clearly doesn't scare easily. When major newspapers and magazines are intimidated by fatwas to not publish a drawing of the Prophet and independent movie producers descended from the classic dutch painter Van Gogh are assassinated in the streets, this non-inclusive Christian decides to tweak the Muslims of the world with a sacrilege. I think Salmon Rushdie is still hiding in plain sight to avoid a ceremonial beheading.
The government's reaction is to point out that this will make many folks unhappy. And, much like the mild-mannered doctor who transforms into The Hulk, you won't like them when they're angry.
Petraeus Warns Taliban Will Be Inflamed
The State Department issues a solemn warning against the demonstration as well, but let's think about where we are.
This is a nation with a First Amendment. We burn our own flag to make political statements and you can bet that used to make a few people unhappy although not so much anymore. We display crucifixes in Mason jars of urine and admire the artistic statement. We adorn Madonnas in dung and comment on the creativity of the production.
Our Supreme Court has ruled that symbolism is protected speech. The Koran burning seems quite clearly to be offensive, crude, inflammatory (no pun intended) and definitely in the category of protected political expression. It might even piggy-back on the free exercise of religion aspects of the First Amendment as well.
I don't particularly like the idea of demeaning someone else's religion or their revered objects. But I also am not yet willing to abandon the liberties of America. I'm not quite comfortable with modifying my behavior, my expression, my attitudes, my literature, my life view simply so that it doesn't offend some knuckle-dragging goatherd living in a cave and abiding by the rulings of a twelfth century megalomaniac. If they can't take a joke, screw 'em.
Burn, baby, burn!
16 comments:
The flaw in Raz’s argument is an assumption: i.e., that a preacher can invoke fighting words while making a hateful political speech or expression. He/she cannot. I will grant you that where the line gets drawn can become a difficult issue, but the boundary of fighting words is usually an issue of fact, not law. So we find instances where the American Nazi Party can march in front of Jewish worshipers, and if their speech or offensive acts do not reach to the level of “fighting words” the bigots get a pass. (A legal pass, not a moral one.)
There are several Supreme Court decisions that illuminate the difficulty that the justices have had with such matters. Let us use as an example Texas v. Johnson (491 US 397), a flag burning conviction that had already been affirmed by the Fifth Circuit and which was overturned in a 5-4 decision. Even here, the Court did not rule that a flag burning statute could not be crafted. But in a superb example of intellectual gerrymandering, Brennan and four other Supremes could not grasp the fighting words issue. Chief Justice Rehnquist sure did, and he wrote a stinging dissent (with Justices White and O’Connor). Rehnquist wrote that the “Court ignored Oliver Wendell Holmes familiar aphorism that ‘a page of history is worth a volume of logic.’ ” So the use of fighting words and expressions are illegal, but the application of that principle is problematic.
Perhaps most troubling about Raz’s encouraging “Burn, baby burn” is his embrace not just of hate speech, but fighting words. That our State Department and Gen. Petraeus have warned of repercussions against our troops from such fighting words apparently does not concern Raz. Has he lost his mind? And has it not occurred to him that by extension of his argument he also sanctions the far less serious actions of those impostors who falsely claim to have military decorations? Let’s hope Raz gives this some more thought. If so, we can give him another pass.
Ed doesn't need me to speak for him but I think you take yourself too seriously.
Yeah I'm not sure I see any embracing of hate speech at all in this blog post. I see him embracing the First Amendment and there certainly isn't anything wrong with that.
But this isn't a First Amendment issue. At least not for Lt Gen Caldwell who made it clear that citizens had free speech rights and just wanted them to be aware that their legal speech might have second and third order effects that would endanger troops on the front lines. At least that's what I heard in his interview with Wolf from CNN.
Citizens have the right to say/do stupid things for stupid reasons but that doesn't mean they should.
There is not such thing as "hate speech," which is a concept created by the Marxist-German mind. Our philosophy, traditions, and laws are our own unique adaptations of English models. We should properly scoff at the concept of "hate speech" as we do the serotypes of spiked helmets, monocles, jack boots, and dueling scars.
There is a lot of horse sense in what the pastor is up to. Consider:
One: If the radical Muslims do something really stupid, it will create enough political will to wipe them out--long past due--and then we can end this expensive war.
Two: If the radical muslims don't do something stupid, then the pastor's move will have helped to mitigate their zealousness. We'll wear 'em down with free speech, so to speak.
Three: The controversy created by all this will help to reinforce who we are and what we believe in. It will remind us that our traditions are Anglo-American, and we think the concept of "hate speech" is for robotic bureaucrats who belong back in 1930s Berlin. And it will remind us that we are strong enough--that our Constitution is strong enough--for us to make any damn political statement we please.
Too bad more American's don't have as much fire in their belly as this pastor. Our culture, our institutions and our power would be better respected, and the world would be a more peaceful place.
Ralph: What 'fighting words'?
“We must send a send a clear message to radical Islam,” [Rev. Terry] Jones said to news cameras outside his church this week. “We will not be controlled by their fear, we will not be dominated. We feel it is time for America to be America.”
In case you don't know, the Koran is chock full of 'fighting words' (and actions) demanded for use against everyone who does not embrace every facet of Islam as their own religion.
While I wouldn't dream of dishonoring what others might consider sacred, Jones' proposed 'Koran burning-day' is a perfectly-legal political (and religious) decision on his part. Any 'fighting words' concerning his actions would apparently come exclusively from Islamic militants. (He has received death threats - as has his family and associates.)
The Koran-burning idea is indeed controversial, and not a good idea - in view of possible reactions here and abroad. However, it is a near-perfect mirror image of the 'Ground Zero mosque' controversy in every respect, right down to the 'in your face' aspects available under the First Amendment - a right available to _everyone_, not just the 'side' we like.
The issue of fighting words is that it is provocative, which can lead to fights (or violence when the parties are not in direct contact). In this matter, the consequences can be real. Btw, it is extremely rare for a general in a combat theater to speak out on what some may think is a domestic First Amendment issue. This pastor needs no encouragement. “Burn, bay, burn” are fighting words when applied to the Koran, and are likely to be answered in a way that results in a loss of life. Petraeus and the State Dept. hve this right, on which point we will just have to disagree.
And as it is now well known that Patreus has warned the pastor not to burn the korans for fear of islamic reprisal, the jihadis will be imboldened by more appeasement, making them more aggressive.
Make sure everybody on the line has extra ammo, double the watch, have HEAVY air support on standby, and let them to bring it on.
I think Ed is entirely accurate in his assessment of this as a first amendment issue. And the world needs to know that Americans are bound by American laws only. They have no say whatsoever. That's why this country was founded in the first place. We seem to have forgotten that.
Randall, it's not a First Amendment "issue" because the government has not prohibited the pastor from any speech. No government agency or individual has said the pastor cannot burn whatever books he wants to burn. Until he is denied or punished for free speech actions, it's not a First Amendment issue.
Just my two cents.
Late to the fight as usual, but....
Just as the Muslim supporters of the Mosque in NYC have a RIGHT to build their church, this church has a RIGHT to burn the Koran. However, in neither case do I think it's the RIGHT thing to do. Without wishing to put words in our host's mouth, I believe that's essentially what he's saying.
Juvat, why don't you think it's right for the Mosque to be built? I can see why burning Koran's is a poor decision (it's simple bigotry from one religious group that follows a superstitious writing against another group that follows a superstitious writing) but I don't understand how legally building a place of worship in the USA is the same. If the mosque was being built while denying another religious place of worship to be built then I could see a parallel but that's not the case is it?
They have the right to build a church. I don't think it's right (let's change words...proper, respectful, understanding, sensitive, hell "a smart thing to do, pick one) WHERE they want to build that church.
Let me ask you. Why do you think it's right for them to build it there? Not do they have the right, why is it right?
I think it's right for them to build it there because it's a testament to the principles of America...religious freedom, tolerance, diversity, and I particularly like that it is a symbol of American principle (as our nation was founded, but not as practiced by many unfortunately) that serves to bolster our allies in the Muslim world against our enemies by denying the radical Muslims the "religious war" that morons on both sides are claiming this is.
So, by extension, if I call someone the N-word, that should be cheered as a testament our freedom of speech? If the German government put up a Nazi Museum at Auschwitz glorifying how they made the trains run on time that should be allowed? I'm saying that society has norms that the transgression of which has consequences. Were I to use the N-word, I'd be ostracized and rightly so. As would the Germans in my hypothetical example and, so should the people pushing the current planned location of this Mosque.
Disclaimer: The word MORON was not used anywhere, nor required, in my response.
I think your analogy falls flat. People wanting to build a mosque isn't the same as using the N-word or Nazis building a museum.
Moron was required in my response.
Post a Comment