Koran burning update

Well, the Florida preacher who threatened to burn the Koran decided not to.  But some other people took his idea and ran with it.  Iranian television has been broadcasting this information throughout the Muslim world.  Rioting has erupted.  Christian schools and churches are being attacked.  The death toll so far:  15.

Notice how burning the Koran, far from striking back at the jihadists, is actually playing right into their hands.

Iranian-backed TV broadcasts US Koran desecrations, inflames deadly Kashmir riots; 15 dead.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • kerner

    It is ironic, isn’t it, that most of the dead are the Islamic rioters?

    I wonder if anyone expected that.

  • kerner

    It is ironic, isn’t it, that most of the dead are the Islamic rioters?

    I wonder if anyone expected that.

  • Charles V

    Any pretext to start rioting. The only thing the riots and murder do is vindicate the position of those who reject the “Islam means Peace” angle.

  • Charles V

    Any pretext to start rioting. The only thing the riots and murder do is vindicate the position of those who reject the “Islam means Peace” angle.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    I cannot even begin to imagine even the most foam-at-the-mouth christian even coming close to even thinking about doing physical harm to someone wanting to burn bibles. It would not be a newsworthy event.

    We imagine that all religious are about peace, forgiveness and loving one´s enemy. This is simply not so.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    I cannot even begin to imagine even the most foam-at-the-mouth christian even coming close to even thinking about doing physical harm to someone wanting to burn bibles. It would not be a newsworthy event.

    We imagine that all religious are about peace, forgiveness and loving one´s enemy. This is simply not so.

  • http://www.newreformationpress.com Patrick Kyle

    No, you must be mistaken… it’s a religion of peace!

  • http://www.newreformationpress.com Patrick Kyle

    No, you must be mistaken… it’s a religion of peace!

  • Matt Jamison

    The blame here rests squarely on those committing the murder and mayhem and the state controlled media that is urging them on.

    One thinks if they couldn’t find a sufficient pretext for killing Christians they would probably just make one up. There is nothing we can do to appease or soothe this wickedness.

  • Matt Jamison

    The blame here rests squarely on those committing the murder and mayhem and the state controlled media that is urging them on.

    One thinks if they couldn’t find a sufficient pretext for killing Christians they would probably just make one up. There is nothing we can do to appease or soothe this wickedness.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    I really don’t know what to make of burning Korans. I don’t think it would be the better part of a Christian witness. Though I do think it might be a good expression of the separation of Church and state and make somewhat a good political rally.
    The rioters need to be put down. This just exposes Islam for what it it is. The culture seems to have an anger management problem.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    I really don’t know what to make of burning Korans. I don’t think it would be the better part of a Christian witness. Though I do think it might be a good expression of the separation of Church and state and make somewhat a good political rally.
    The rioters need to be put down. This just exposes Islam for what it it is. The culture seems to have an anger management problem.

  • mark

    I do not agree with burning a Koran.

    But I also do not understand this idea of blaming those who burn a Koran with causing the riots and the murders and the destruction of churches. Aren’t Muslims independent responsible moral agents? Apparently not. If a Christian seeing what happens in these foreign lands attacks a Muslim, are they then without fault. Who would accept such reasoning.

  • mark

    I do not agree with burning a Koran.

    But I also do not understand this idea of blaming those who burn a Koran with causing the riots and the murders and the destruction of churches. Aren’t Muslims independent responsible moral agents? Apparently not. If a Christian seeing what happens in these foreign lands attacks a Muslim, are they then without fault. Who would accept such reasoning.

  • DonS

    I agree with Mark @ 7, and profoundly disagree with John @ 8. John, have you been paying any attention whatsoever, or do you just show up to spout your anti- Fox and anti-GOP points on random occasions? Fox stood out as a media outlet not wanting to shine attention on the Koran burnings, and to my knowledge, all major media outlets have covered them at some level. I don’t get your “Newt and other GOP leaders” reference at all. Everyone that spoke publicly on this issue condemned the Koran burnings.

    As for your intention to burn the American and Confederate flags, have at it! It’s a free country, which is why we are blessed to live in America!

  • DonS

    I agree with Mark @ 7, and profoundly disagree with John @ 8. John, have you been paying any attention whatsoever, or do you just show up to spout your anti- Fox and anti-GOP points on random occasions? Fox stood out as a media outlet not wanting to shine attention on the Koran burnings, and to my knowledge, all major media outlets have covered them at some level. I don’t get your “Newt and other GOP leaders” reference at all. Everyone that spoke publicly on this issue condemned the Koran burnings.

    As for your intention to burn the American and Confederate flags, have at it! It’s a free country, which is why we are blessed to live in America!

  • Porcell

    The American people made it clear that they regarded Pastor Jones as a crude bigot; their leaders spoke in no uncertain terms that it was wrong to burn the Koran.

    Too bad that Muslim people don’t speak out about the savagery of the jihadi Islamists, either because they lack the backbone or in the case of not a few of them they loath what America stands for and regard 9/11 as a triumph.

    After 9/11 George Bush made it a point to visit a mosque and reassure the Muslim people that the issue had to do with terrorists, not Islam. Though Islam is indeed at the core of what the jihadis are about, as president he was right to do this. The problem is, however, that the notion of moderate Islam has turned out to be rather a mirage.

    John, at 8, actually the Muslims were far more secure during the Bush administration than, with delightful irony, under Obama. Americans by and large, given the savagery of the Islamic jihadis have proven to be remarkably tolerant and moderate, your fevered drivel notwithstanding.

  • Porcell

    The American people made it clear that they regarded Pastor Jones as a crude bigot; their leaders spoke in no uncertain terms that it was wrong to burn the Koran.

    Too bad that Muslim people don’t speak out about the savagery of the jihadi Islamists, either because they lack the backbone or in the case of not a few of them they loath what America stands for and regard 9/11 as a triumph.

    After 9/11 George Bush made it a point to visit a mosque and reassure the Muslim people that the issue had to do with terrorists, not Islam. Though Islam is indeed at the core of what the jihadis are about, as president he was right to do this. The problem is, however, that the notion of moderate Islam has turned out to be rather a mirage.

    John, at 8, actually the Muslims were far more secure during the Bush administration than, with delightful irony, under Obama. Americans by and large, given the savagery of the Islamic jihadis have proven to be remarkably tolerant and moderate, your fevered drivel notwithstanding.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    “Too bad that Muslim people don’t speak out about the savagery of the jihadi Islamists” (@10). Or, rather, too bad that people like Porcell who are bent on denying anything other than a monolithic radical Islam don’t listen to those Muslims that do speak out about their radical brethren. Because then they’d have to concede that there is something like a moderate Islam. But Porcell has already concluded that there isn’t, so, ipso facto, no Muslims ever speak out about terrorism, etc. QED.

    “Actually the Muslims were far more secure during the Bush administration than, with delightful irony, under Obama.” I’ll likely regret this, but okay, what does that even mean?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    “Too bad that Muslim people don’t speak out about the savagery of the jihadi Islamists” (@10). Or, rather, too bad that people like Porcell who are bent on denying anything other than a monolithic radical Islam don’t listen to those Muslims that do speak out about their radical brethren. Because then they’d have to concede that there is something like a moderate Islam. But Porcell has already concluded that there isn’t, so, ipso facto, no Muslims ever speak out about terrorism, etc. QED.

    “Actually the Muslims were far more secure during the Bush administration than, with delightful irony, under Obama.” I’ll likely regret this, but okay, what does that even mean?

  • Ryan

    Luther’s advice is best on the Koran – print it, read it (and even more so read our own Holy Book!) to engage in some tough minded apologetics, let’s see if the Jihadists can take it.

  • Ryan

    Luther’s advice is best on the Koran – print it, read it (and even more so read our own Holy Book!) to engage in some tough minded apologetics, let’s see if the Jihadists can take it.

  • Ryan

    Oh and burning is so environmentally unfriendly – lets at least recycle instead. :)

  • Ryan

    Oh and burning is so environmentally unfriendly – lets at least recycle instead. :)

  • Porcell

    Todd, the truth is that, while we have hoped to hear a strong moderate Islam voice against the jihadis, so far this has by and large turned out to be a mirage.

    Also, the American people understood that Bush carried out a strong fight against the jihadi Islamists while reaching out to moderate Islamic folk. Also, during the Bush administration there were zero jihadi attacks.

    Obama’s view toward radical Islam has been at best ambiguous. Early in his administration he wouldn’t use the word “terrorist” and referred to their savagery as “man caused disaster.” He is still talking about trying the 9/11 mastermind , Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in an American court, as opposed to Bush’s proposal to try him by a military commission. While fighting the Taliban, he has declared that our troops will withdraw in 2011. Wise presidents during a war hardly announce the time of a withdrawal.

    The result is that Americans after the Fort Hood massacre, the Christmas bombing, Times Square attack, and the Ground Zero fiasco have become concerned about the jihadi threat, though by and large they have handled the foolish Pastor Jones matter and others quite well.

    Bottom line is that Obama’s handling of the jihadi threat, as well as the economy, has not inspired the confidence in the American people. I doubt whether such a pest as Jones would have come out of the woodwork during woodwork during Bush’s presidency.

  • Porcell

    Todd, the truth is that, while we have hoped to hear a strong moderate Islam voice against the jihadis, so far this has by and large turned out to be a mirage.

    Also, the American people understood that Bush carried out a strong fight against the jihadi Islamists while reaching out to moderate Islamic folk. Also, during the Bush administration there were zero jihadi attacks.

    Obama’s view toward radical Islam has been at best ambiguous. Early in his administration he wouldn’t use the word “terrorist” and referred to their savagery as “man caused disaster.” He is still talking about trying the 9/11 mastermind , Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in an American court, as opposed to Bush’s proposal to try him by a military commission. While fighting the Taliban, he has declared that our troops will withdraw in 2011. Wise presidents during a war hardly announce the time of a withdrawal.

    The result is that Americans after the Fort Hood massacre, the Christmas bombing, Times Square attack, and the Ground Zero fiasco have become concerned about the jihadi threat, though by and large they have handled the foolish Pastor Jones matter and others quite well.

    Bottom line is that Obama’s handling of the jihadi threat, as well as the economy, has not inspired the confidence in the American people. I doubt whether such a pest as Jones would have come out of the woodwork during woodwork during Bush’s presidency.

  • Porcell

    Excuse the parlous awkwardness of that last sentence.

  • Porcell

    Excuse the parlous awkwardness of that last sentence.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    deq gresham
    503-667-8414 x55026

    “while we have hoped to hear a strong moderate Islam voice against the jihadis, so far this has by and large turned out to be a mirage” (@14). Thus begins the stream of qualifications or walking-back. Remember, Porcell, you started out by claiming that “Muslim people don’t speak out about the savagery of the jihadi Islamists” (@10). When I gainsayed you (it is easy to find examples of Muslims — moderate ones, I dare say — speaking out against terrorist acts), you then said what you wanted to hear was a “strong” response. And what, exactly, constitutes a “strong” response? I’m not going to bother pointing to evidence until you’ve set a bar to reach.

    “During the Bush administration there were zero jihadi attacks.” What kind of crack are you smoking, and where can you get it so cheaply as to be smoking that much, Porcell?

    Again, what did you mean by “the Muslims were far more secure during the Bush administration than, with delightful irony, under Obama”? If you’ve explained it, I didn’t catch it.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    deq gresham
    503-667-8414 x55026

    “while we have hoped to hear a strong moderate Islam voice against the jihadis, so far this has by and large turned out to be a mirage” (@14). Thus begins the stream of qualifications or walking-back. Remember, Porcell, you started out by claiming that “Muslim people don’t speak out about the savagery of the jihadi Islamists” (@10). When I gainsayed you (it is easy to find examples of Muslims — moderate ones, I dare say — speaking out against terrorist acts), you then said what you wanted to hear was a “strong” response. And what, exactly, constitutes a “strong” response? I’m not going to bother pointing to evidence until you’ve set a bar to reach.

    “During the Bush administration there were zero jihadi attacks.” What kind of crack are you smoking, and where can you get it so cheaply as to be smoking that much, Porcell?

    Again, what did you mean by “the Muslims were far more secure during the Bush administration than, with delightful irony, under Obama”? If you’ve explained it, I didn’t catch it.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Ha! And now everyone can also know what the number for the DEQ is in Gresham, Oregon. I really should keep my notes to self in some other place.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Ha! And now everyone can also know what the number for the DEQ is in Gresham, Oregon. I really should keep my notes to self in some other place.

  • Porcell

    Todd, at 16, first, I ought to have said that after 9/11 and the shoe bomber attack shortly thereafter, there were zero attacks against America similar to the Fort Hood Massacre, the Christmas bomber,the Times Square Bomber, as well as the attempt to plant a monument to the Islamic victory near ground Zero.

    As to why Americans felt more secure under Bush, allow me to repeat the following:

    Obama’s view toward radical Islam has been at best ambiguous. Early in his administration he wouldn’t use the word “terrorist” and referred to their savagery as “man caused disaster.” He is still talking about trying the 9/11 mastermind , Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in an American court, as opposed to Bush’s proposal to try him by a military commission. While fighting the Taliban, he has declared that our troops will withdraw in 2011. Wise presidents during a war hardly announce the time of a withdrawal.

    The result is that Americans after the Fort Hood massacre, the Christmas bombing, Times Square attack, and the Ground Zero fiasco have become concerned about the jihadi threat, though by and large they have handled the foolish Pastor Jones matter and others quite well.

    Bottom line is that Obama’s handling of the jihadi threat, as well as the economy, has not inspired the confidence in the American people. I doubt whether such a pest as Jones would have come out of the woodwork during woodwork during Bush’s presidency.

    Do you have any serious argument to counter this, or do you wish to further your argumentum ad hominen,. Better still, you might bring in as per usual, some side issue and blow smoke with it.

  • Porcell

    Todd, at 16, first, I ought to have said that after 9/11 and the shoe bomber attack shortly thereafter, there were zero attacks against America similar to the Fort Hood Massacre, the Christmas bomber,the Times Square Bomber, as well as the attempt to plant a monument to the Islamic victory near ground Zero.

    As to why Americans felt more secure under Bush, allow me to repeat the following:

    Obama’s view toward radical Islam has been at best ambiguous. Early in his administration he wouldn’t use the word “terrorist” and referred to their savagery as “man caused disaster.” He is still talking about trying the 9/11 mastermind , Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in an American court, as opposed to Bush’s proposal to try him by a military commission. While fighting the Taliban, he has declared that our troops will withdraw in 2011. Wise presidents during a war hardly announce the time of a withdrawal.

    The result is that Americans after the Fort Hood massacre, the Christmas bombing, Times Square attack, and the Ground Zero fiasco have become concerned about the jihadi threat, though by and large they have handled the foolish Pastor Jones matter and others quite well.

    Bottom line is that Obama’s handling of the jihadi threat, as well as the economy, has not inspired the confidence in the American people. I doubt whether such a pest as Jones would have come out of the woodwork during woodwork during Bush’s presidency.

    Do you have any serious argument to counter this, or do you wish to further your argumentum ad hominen,. Better still, you might bring in as per usual, some side issue and blow smoke with it.

  • Just Learning

    We might not have to worry about Koran burning anymore.

    Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said that maybe the First Amendment doesn’t protect burning the Koran. All b/c it might cause some to kill.

    Soooooooo we’re a nation of the law of shrapnel and box-cutters, not men.

    Cool, huh?

  • Just Learning

    We might not have to worry about Koran burning anymore.

    Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said that maybe the First Amendment doesn’t protect burning the Koran. All b/c it might cause some to kill.

    Soooooooo we’re a nation of the law of shrapnel and box-cutters, not men.

    Cool, huh?

  • DonS

    I saw those comments by Justice Breyer, originally made on Good Morning America — here is one of many links to an article discussing them.

    I am not a big fan of our current jurisprudence generally finding conduct to be First Amendment expression. I think it is overdone, particularly in the area of pornography, which was certainly not the intended purpose of the First Amendment anyway. However, it is hard to see the burning of a Koran for the purpose of protest not falling under the purview of the First Amendment, if it is done peacefully and particularly on your own property. The Virginia v. Black case is a very special one, since it dealt with cross burnings, which are a very particular sore in American history. Even in that case, the holding was that cross burnings where there is an intent to intimidate are not constitutionally protected, and could be prohibited by statute. But, the Court emphasized that, absent this intent, they are protected.

  • DonS

    I saw those comments by Justice Breyer, originally made on Good Morning America — here is one of many links to an article discussing them.

    I am not a big fan of our current jurisprudence generally finding conduct to be First Amendment expression. I think it is overdone, particularly in the area of pornography, which was certainly not the intended purpose of the First Amendment anyway. However, it is hard to see the burning of a Koran for the purpose of protest not falling under the purview of the First Amendment, if it is done peacefully and particularly on your own property. The Virginia v. Black case is a very special one, since it dealt with cross burnings, which are a very particular sore in American history. Even in that case, the holding was that cross burnings where there is an intent to intimidate are not constitutionally protected, and could be prohibited by statute. But, the Court emphasized that, absent this intent, they are protected.

  • DonS
  • DonS
  • Joe

    Todd, I think Porcell may be making a reference to this article from the NYT where this text appears:

    “Some Muslims said their situation felt more precarious now — under a president who is perceived as not only friendly to Muslims but is wrongly believed by many Americans to be Muslim himself — than it was under President George W. Bush.

    “Mr. Patel explained, “After Sept. 11, we had a Republican president who had the confidence and trust of red America, who went to a mosque and said, ‘Islam means peace,’ and who said ‘Muslims are our neighbors and friends,’ and who distinguished between terrorism and Islam.”

    Of course the thrust of the argument is not that its Obama’s fault but that without Bush as a check red-state America is being whipped into an anti-Muslim frenzy and making things worse for Muslims. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/06/us/06muslims.html?_r=1

    Not a real strong argument against Obama or his policies.

  • Joe

    Todd, I think Porcell may be making a reference to this article from the NYT where this text appears:

    “Some Muslims said their situation felt more precarious now — under a president who is perceived as not only friendly to Muslims but is wrongly believed by many Americans to be Muslim himself — than it was under President George W. Bush.

    “Mr. Patel explained, “After Sept. 11, we had a Republican president who had the confidence and trust of red America, who went to a mosque and said, ‘Islam means peace,’ and who said ‘Muslims are our neighbors and friends,’ and who distinguished between terrorism and Islam.”

    Of course the thrust of the argument is not that its Obama’s fault but that without Bush as a check red-state America is being whipped into an anti-Muslim frenzy and making things worse for Muslims. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/06/us/06muslims.html?_r=1

    Not a real strong argument against Obama or his policies.

  • Porcell

    Don, Thanks for that link; Breyer’s point, following Holmes, that the First Amendment doesn’t allow one to shout “fire” in a theater is good, though the Court has ruled that burning the American flag is a First Amendment right, something that in my view is absurd.

    In my view blasphemy against religion, whether it is Piss Christ by Serrano or burning the Koran by some obscure Christian preacher ought to be illegal, though that runs against recent liberal Supreme Court rulings,

  • Porcell

    Don, Thanks for that link; Breyer’s point, following Holmes, that the First Amendment doesn’t allow one to shout “fire” in a theater is good, though the Court has ruled that burning the American flag is a First Amendment right, something that in my view is absurd.

    In my view blasphemy against religion, whether it is Piss Christ by Serrano or burning the Koran by some obscure Christian preacher ought to be illegal, though that runs against recent liberal Supreme Court rulings,

  • Winston Smith

    Supreme Court Justices should not shoot their mouths off carelessly.

    What Justice Breyer and four of his colleagues say in the pages of the United States Reports is what counts. Anything that gets said on Good Morning America is just filler between smoothie recipes for summer and Justin Bieber live on the Plaza.

    I say stretch the First Amendment to its utmost capacity. The right to free expression is meaningless is it only protects popular or safe ideas.

  • Winston Smith

    Supreme Court Justices should not shoot their mouths off carelessly.

    What Justice Breyer and four of his colleagues say in the pages of the United States Reports is what counts. Anything that gets said on Good Morning America is just filler between smoothie recipes for summer and Justin Bieber live on the Plaza.

    I say stretch the First Amendment to its utmost capacity. The right to free expression is meaningless is it only protects popular or safe ideas.

  • Just Learning

    I wonder what SCJ Breyer thinks should happen when you burn a Koran wrapped in the American flag.

  • Just Learning

    I wonder what SCJ Breyer thinks should happen when you burn a Koran wrapped in the American flag.

  • Just Learning

    If a woman wears a short skirt, can we lock her up for it b/c she might incite a rape?

  • Just Learning

    If a woman wears a short skirt, can we lock her up for it b/c she might incite a rape?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Porcell, honestly, what is your point?

    You claim, baselessly, that “Muslim people don’t speak out about the savagery of the jihadi Islamists” (@10). When I questioned you about this, as it is obviously false, you qualified it by saying (@14) that the hope for “a strong moderate Islam voice against the jihadis … turned out to be a mirage.” I asked you to define your terms, but in your latest reply (@18), you dropped the claim altogether. Which is just as well, as it was a silly claim to begin with.

    Another of your claims was that “the notion of moderate Islam has turned out to be rather a mirage” (@10). And yet, without any sense of irony, you then proceeded to tell me (@14) that “Bush … reach[ed] out to moderate Islamic folk.” So … there were moderate Islamic folk when Bush was in office, but they all, what evaporated?

    “The Muslims were far more secure during the Bush administration than, with delightful irony, under Obama” (@10). Joe (@23) attempted to throw you a bone on this one, though he ultimately concluded “Not a real strong argument against Obama or his policies,” and I agree — if anyone is to blame for things being worse under Obama, according to Joe’s article, it is the idiots spreading the misinformation that Obama is a Muslim. And such people are overwhelmingly Republican, surprise, surprise. Anyhow, does anyone else remember headlines like “Hate Crimes Against Arabs Surge, FBI Finds” from November 2002? I do. Oh, but the Muslims were more secure when they (or people who were merely assumed to be Muslim) were actually being attacked than when someone was burning a Quran. Right.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Porcell, honestly, what is your point?

    You claim, baselessly, that “Muslim people don’t speak out about the savagery of the jihadi Islamists” (@10). When I questioned you about this, as it is obviously false, you qualified it by saying (@14) that the hope for “a strong moderate Islam voice against the jihadis … turned out to be a mirage.” I asked you to define your terms, but in your latest reply (@18), you dropped the claim altogether. Which is just as well, as it was a silly claim to begin with.

    Another of your claims was that “the notion of moderate Islam has turned out to be rather a mirage” (@10). And yet, without any sense of irony, you then proceeded to tell me (@14) that “Bush … reach[ed] out to moderate Islamic folk.” So … there were moderate Islamic folk when Bush was in office, but they all, what evaporated?

    “The Muslims were far more secure during the Bush administration than, with delightful irony, under Obama” (@10). Joe (@23) attempted to throw you a bone on this one, though he ultimately concluded “Not a real strong argument against Obama or his policies,” and I agree — if anyone is to blame for things being worse under Obama, according to Joe’s article, it is the idiots spreading the misinformation that Obama is a Muslim. And such people are overwhelmingly Republican, surprise, surprise. Anyhow, does anyone else remember headlines like “Hate Crimes Against Arabs Surge, FBI Finds” from November 2002? I do. Oh, but the Muslims were more secure when they (or people who were merely assumed to be Muslim) were actually being attacked than when someone was burning a Quran. Right.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    As for your wish, Porcell (@24), that “blasphemy against religion … ought to be illegal”, I could not think of a more wrongheaded, unconstitutional, anti-American notion. Oh, sure, pick on the same stupid 23-year-old work that every Culture Warrior will harp on till the day he dies. It’s not like anyone around here will stand up for Serrano, so it’s easy to bully him.

    But do try to think before making such ridiculous pronouncements. Do you really think that blasphemy against Christ — such as can be readily found among Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons, and, well, pretty much everywhere — should be “illegal”? And, what’s more, do you think that blasphemy against Allah should be illegal? Blasphemy against Ahura Mazda? I can’t imagine you thought that statement through any longer than it took you to type it.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    As for your wish, Porcell (@24), that “blasphemy against religion … ought to be illegal”, I could not think of a more wrongheaded, unconstitutional, anti-American notion. Oh, sure, pick on the same stupid 23-year-old work that every Culture Warrior will harp on till the day he dies. It’s not like anyone around here will stand up for Serrano, so it’s easy to bully him.

    But do try to think before making such ridiculous pronouncements. Do you really think that blasphemy against Christ — such as can be readily found among Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons, and, well, pretty much everywhere — should be “illegal”? And, what’s more, do you think that blasphemy against Allah should be illegal? Blasphemy against Ahura Mazda? I can’t imagine you thought that statement through any longer than it took you to type it.

  • Porcell

    Todd, the fact is that so far the Muslim moderates haven’t stood up in a strong, meaningful way against the jihadi Islamists. There are a few isolated moderate Muslim voices, though they have no influence on the jihadis in the way that Pastor Jones was shamed into giving up his project.

    As to Piss Christ and the burning of holy books or flags, reasonable laws could be crafted that distinguish between ideas and symbolical objects.

    John, it’s not just the Red State folk who have little confidence in Obama’s handling of the war against the jihadis. Many thoughtful people in the blue states have been appalled at such Obama actions as attempting to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammad in New York and calling terrorist acts “man caused disasters.” Also, the American people in general are slowly but surely coming to understand that it’s not just the terrorist jihadis that are a threat; it’s, also, the smooth talking stealth jihadis, like Imam Rauf, who are making a concerted effort to foist Shari’ah law on the West.

  • Porcell

    Todd, the fact is that so far the Muslim moderates haven’t stood up in a strong, meaningful way against the jihadi Islamists. There are a few isolated moderate Muslim voices, though they have no influence on the jihadis in the way that Pastor Jones was shamed into giving up his project.

    As to Piss Christ and the burning of holy books or flags, reasonable laws could be crafted that distinguish between ideas and symbolical objects.

    John, it’s not just the Red State folk who have little confidence in Obama’s handling of the war against the jihadis. Many thoughtful people in the blue states have been appalled at such Obama actions as attempting to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammad in New York and calling terrorist acts “man caused disasters.” Also, the American people in general are slowly but surely coming to understand that it’s not just the terrorist jihadis that are a threat; it’s, also, the smooth talking stealth jihadis, like Imam Rauf, who are making a concerted effort to foist Shari’ah law on the West.

  • Winston Smith

    tODD @29 makes a good point. Conservative culture warriors have done a great deal to immortalize Andres Serrano and his act of provocation masquerading as art. An artist who should have long ago faded into deserved obscurity has been mentioned several times in this thread already (including once by me).

  • Winston Smith

    tODD @29 makes a good point. Conservative culture warriors have done a great deal to immortalize Andres Serrano and his act of provocation masquerading as art. An artist who should have long ago faded into deserved obscurity has been mentioned several times in this thread already (including once by me).

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Porcell (@30), pick a stance and argue it for a bit, will you?

    Do “moderate Muslims” exist or don’t they? Were you right when you said that “the notion of moderate Islam has turned out to be rather a mirage” (@10)? Or were you, instead, correct in noting that Bush “reach[ed] out to moderate Islamic folk” (@14) and that “the Muslim moderates haven’t stood up” (@30) — both statements obviously assuming the non-mirage-like existence of, you know, moderate Muslims?

    And you continue to dodge my question (@16) of: what, exactly, would constitute a “strong” response from moderate Muslims? Is your statement falsifiable, or is it merely rhetorical hoo-hah? At least you’ve finessed your initial — and silly — statement (@10) that “Muslim people don’t speak out about the savagery of the jihadi Islamists”, now conceding that “there are a few isolated moderate Muslim voices, though they have no influence on the jihadis” (@30).

    And I see that you’ve also walked back your (also silly) declaration (@24) that “blasphemy against religion … ought to be illegal”, now merely suggesting (@30) that “reasonable laws could be crafted that distinguish between ideas and symbolical objects”. Such laws would, of course, not be any more “reasonable” than any other anti-American, unconstitutional ones, but I guess they would protect the delicate sensibilities of you and people like you. So tell me, would Thomas Jefferson’s Bible count as something that you think should have been illegal?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Porcell (@30), pick a stance and argue it for a bit, will you?

    Do “moderate Muslims” exist or don’t they? Were you right when you said that “the notion of moderate Islam has turned out to be rather a mirage” (@10)? Or were you, instead, correct in noting that Bush “reach[ed] out to moderate Islamic folk” (@14) and that “the Muslim moderates haven’t stood up” (@30) — both statements obviously assuming the non-mirage-like existence of, you know, moderate Muslims?

    And you continue to dodge my question (@16) of: what, exactly, would constitute a “strong” response from moderate Muslims? Is your statement falsifiable, or is it merely rhetorical hoo-hah? At least you’ve finessed your initial — and silly — statement (@10) that “Muslim people don’t speak out about the savagery of the jihadi Islamists”, now conceding that “there are a few isolated moderate Muslim voices, though they have no influence on the jihadis” (@30).

    And I see that you’ve also walked back your (also silly) declaration (@24) that “blasphemy against religion … ought to be illegal”, now merely suggesting (@30) that “reasonable laws could be crafted that distinguish between ideas and symbolical objects”. Such laws would, of course, not be any more “reasonable” than any other anti-American, unconstitutional ones, but I guess they would protect the delicate sensibilities of you and people like you. So tell me, would Thomas Jefferson’s Bible count as something that you think should have been illegal?

  • Louis

    Todd @ 29; Not to mention blaspheming “The Force” – it has been said that Jedi Knights now function as an independant religion. So a film/culture critic criticizing Star Wars might find himself being prosecuted!

    Todd @ 33: The Canadian Muslim Congress, for instance, criticized the “Ground Zero Mosque” project.

  • Louis

    Todd @ 29; Not to mention blaspheming “The Force” – it has been said that Jedi Knights now function as an independant religion. So a film/culture critic criticizing Star Wars might find himself being prosecuted!

    Todd @ 33: The Canadian Muslim Congress, for instance, criticized the “Ground Zero Mosque” project.

  • Porcell

    Todd: And you continue to dodge my question (@16) of: what, exactly, would constitute a “strong” response from moderate Muslims? A few moderate Muslims exist , though they not enough of them speak-out and act effectively to influence the jihadi Muslims. As for the Canadian Muslim Congress, they account for little and have accomplished less. American people and leaders shamed the idiot Christian pastor, Jones, in a way that the Muslims haven’t come close to.

    From the beginning I had in mind that reasonable laws could be crafted to deal with such blasphemy as Piss Christ, the burning of Korans and flags.

    You and your buddy, Obama, are basically at work demenaing Americans and imagining the reality of “moderate Muslims” who indeed so far have turned out to be a mirage. As Patrick Kyle has eloquently stated on this blog, sooner or later, we shall have to get serious against this formidable and dangerous resurgent jihadi, both of the terrorist and stealth type.

  • Porcell

    Todd: And you continue to dodge my question (@16) of: what, exactly, would constitute a “strong” response from moderate Muslims? A few moderate Muslims exist , though they not enough of them speak-out and act effectively to influence the jihadi Muslims. As for the Canadian Muslim Congress, they account for little and have accomplished less. American people and leaders shamed the idiot Christian pastor, Jones, in a way that the Muslims haven’t come close to.

    From the beginning I had in mind that reasonable laws could be crafted to deal with such blasphemy as Piss Christ, the burning of Korans and flags.

    You and your buddy, Obama, are basically at work demenaing Americans and imagining the reality of “moderate Muslims” who indeed so far have turned out to be a mirage. As Patrick Kyle has eloquently stated on this blog, sooner or later, we shall have to get serious against this formidable and dangerous resurgent jihadi, both of the terrorist and stealth type.

  • mark

    Is it possible to have moderate Muslims when the Koran is so immoderate? Looking at history moderate Islam seems very rare and short lived.

  • mark

    Is it possible to have moderate Muslims when the Koran is so immoderate? Looking at history moderate Islam seems very rare and short lived.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    mark @ 36,
    You’re hitting on it. The history of Islam is a violent one.
    Sure there are plenty of “moderate” muslims out there. Just like there are plenty of Liberal Christians, and nominal Christians.
    But Islam is not about peace.The Koran is not moderate. At least not from what I can tell reading and English translation of the thing. Nor has my study of Islamic history shown it to be a religion that promotes peace, it has conquered the area it now holds sway over by the sword, not even Mecca was converted peacefully, and Islamic historians will point that out.
    There are plenty of Muslims that just want to be left alone, and go about their business. I get that. But that isn’t what the religion is about.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    mark @ 36,
    You’re hitting on it. The history of Islam is a violent one.
    Sure there are plenty of “moderate” muslims out there. Just like there are plenty of Liberal Christians, and nominal Christians.
    But Islam is not about peace.The Koran is not moderate. At least not from what I can tell reading and English translation of the thing. Nor has my study of Islamic history shown it to be a religion that promotes peace, it has conquered the area it now holds sway over by the sword, not even Mecca was converted peacefully, and Islamic historians will point that out.
    There are plenty of Muslims that just want to be left alone, and go about their business. I get that. But that isn’t what the religion is about.

  • Porcell

    Bror, The history of Islam is a violent one.

    Indeed: Excerpt from Samuel Huntington 2002 paper: The Bloody Borders of Islam:

    From Nigeria to Sudan to Pakistan to Indonesia to the Philippines, some of the worst, most hate- driven violence in the world today is perpetrated by Muslims and in the name of Islam.

    In Pakistan, Muslim extremists have attacked Christian churches, killing every parishioner they could. Just last month in Lebanon, an evangelical Christian nurse, who had devoted her life to caring for the sick, was shot three times through the head, presumably, for “proselytizing.”

    On the northern tier of the Islamic world, even more blood flows – in Pakistani-Kashmiri terrorism against Hindu India, Chechen terrorism in Russian-Orthodox Moscow and Palestinian terrorism against the Jews. (The Albanian Muslim campaign against Orthodox Macedonia is now on hold.) And then of course there was Sept. 11 – Islamic terrorism reaching far beyond its borders to strike at the heart of the satanic “Crusaders.”

    The truth is, as Huntington remarks in his Clash of Civilizations, that Mohammed is the only warrior founder of a major world religions.

    Bror, The history of Islam is a violent one.

    Indeed: Excerpt from Samuel Huntington 2002 paper: The Bloody Borders of Islam:

    From Nigeria to Sudan to Pakistan to Indonesia to the Philippines, some of the worst, most hate- driven violence in the world today is perpetrated by Muslims and in the name of Islam.

    In Pakistan, Muslim extremists have attacked Christian churches, killing every parishioner they could. Just last month in Lebanon, an evangelical Christian nurse, who had devoted her life to caring for the sick, was shot three times through the head, presumably, for “proselytizing.”

    On the northern tier of the Islamic world, even more blood flows – in Pakistani-Kashmiri terrorism against Hindu India, Chechen terrorism in Russian-Orthodox Moscow and Palestinian terrorism against the Jews. (The Albanian Muslim campaign against Orthodox Macedonia is now on hold.) And then of course there was Sept. 11 – Islamic terrorism reaching far beyond its borders to strike at the heart of the satanic “Crusaders.”

    The truth is, as Huntington remarks in his Clash of Civilizations, that Mohammed is the only warrior founder of a major world religions.

  • Porcell

    Bror, The history of Islam is a violent one.

    Indeed: Excerpt from Samuel Huntington 2002 paper: The Bloody Borders of Islam:

    From Nigeria to Sudan to Pakistan to Indonesia to the Philippines, some of the worst, most hate- driven violence in the world today is perpetrated by Muslims and in the name of Islam.

    In Pakistan, Muslim extremists have attacked Christian churches, killing every parishioner they could. Just last month in Lebanon, an evangelical Christian nurse, who had devoted her life to caring for the sick, was shot three times through the head, presumably, for “proselytizing.”

    On the northern tier of the Islamic world, even more blood flows – in Pakistani-Kashmiri terrorism against Hindu India, Chechen terrorism in Russian-Orthodox Moscow and Palestinian terrorism against the Jews. (The Albanian Muslim campaign against Orthodox Macedonia is now on hold.) And then of course there was Sept. 11 – Islamic terrorism reaching far beyond its borders to strike at the heart of the satanic “Crusaders.”

    The truth is, as Huntington remarks in his Clash of Civilizations, that Mohammed is the only warrior founder of a major world religions.

    Bror, The history of Islam is a violent one.

    Indeed: Excerpt from Samuel Huntington 2002 paper: The Bloody Borders of Islam:

    From Nigeria to Sudan to Pakistan to Indonesia to the Philippines, some of the worst, most hate- driven violence in the world today is perpetrated by Muslims and in the name of Islam.

    In Pakistan, Muslim extremists have attacked Christian churches, killing every parishioner they could. Just last month in Lebanon, an evangelical Christian nurse, who had devoted her life to caring for the sick, was shot three times through the head, presumably, for “proselytizing.”

    On the northern tier of the Islamic world, even more blood flows – in Pakistani-Kashmiri terrorism against Hindu India, Chechen terrorism in Russian-Orthodox Moscow and Palestinian terrorism against the Jews. (The Albanian Muslim campaign against Orthodox Macedonia is now on hold.) And then of course there was Sept. 11 – Islamic terrorism reaching far beyond its borders to strike at the heart of the satanic “Crusaders.”

    The truth is, as Huntington remarks in his Clash of Civilizations, that Mohammed is the only warrior founder of a major world religions.

  • Porcell

    My apologies for the awkward double posting of the above.

  • Porcell

    My apologies for the awkward double posting of the above.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Abernathy,
    I’m not sure what you are getting at! could you clarify? Are you saying we Christians are being moderate because we are not loving those who persecute us? Because we are waging wars or supporting wars against those who would persecute us?
    I would just like a little clarity here, before I decide if I want to respond to this.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Abernathy,
    I’m not sure what you are getting at! could you clarify? Are you saying we Christians are being moderate because we are not loving those who persecute us? Because we are waging wars or supporting wars against those who would persecute us?
    I would just like a little clarity here, before I decide if I want to respond to this.

  • Porcell

    Abernathy, while the Bible has hard things to say about dealing with enemies in Deuteronomy, 7: 1-2, the truth is that both contemporary Jews and Christian are by and large moderate and not interested in pursuing holy wars.

    The Judeo-Christian Bible at base teaches forgiveness and mercy, though Judeo Christian realists knowing the reality of fallen men and nations are not a bit above defending and, if necessary fighting for their vital interests. contemporary Jews and Christians, unlike the Jihadis don’t come close to viewing other religious folk as infidels worthy only to be subjected as Dhimmis, or , if recalcitrant, beheaded or slain by other means.

    In case anyone is interested Deuteronomy 7: 1-2 reads 1 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you- 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. [a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.

    This was a tough period for the Jews; modern Jews and Christians prefer diplomacy, though they are properly not unwilling to defend their vital interests through war.

  • Porcell

    Abernathy, while the Bible has hard things to say about dealing with enemies in Deuteronomy, 7: 1-2, the truth is that both contemporary Jews and Christian are by and large moderate and not interested in pursuing holy wars.

    The Judeo-Christian Bible at base teaches forgiveness and mercy, though Judeo Christian realists knowing the reality of fallen men and nations are not a bit above defending and, if necessary fighting for their vital interests. contemporary Jews and Christians, unlike the Jihadis don’t come close to viewing other religious folk as infidels worthy only to be subjected as Dhimmis, or , if recalcitrant, beheaded or slain by other means.

    In case anyone is interested Deuteronomy 7: 1-2 reads 1 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you- 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. [a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.

    This was a tough period for the Jews; modern Jews and Christians prefer diplomacy, though they are properly not unwilling to defend their vital interests through war.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X