Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
On Terry Jones
The crime was horrific, and the mob outside the jail was angry. They had gathered before and demanded the death of the man inside, but a conservative cleric, who ran a religious school for boys, had appeared and told them all to go home and repent before God. Because the men in the mob were all religious and obeyed this particular cleric, they went home as he had ordered. When the crowd returned a few days later, though, while that cleric was away preaching elsewhere, they fought their way past the guards and found the man for whom they were looking. The man was from a minority group in the area, and though he was actually innocent of the crime of which he had been accused, that did not stop the violent mob from beating him horribly, tying a rope around his neck and throwing him off a bridge while hundreds cheered.
The year was 1906, and the place was my hometown of Chattanooga, Tennessee. The name of the man killed was Ed Johnsen, a black man who had been accused of the brutal rape of a white woman, Nevada Taylor. (The conservative cleric? Well, that madrasa he founded has produced several U.S. senators, governors, businessmen and one dyspeptic defense policy blogger.) The details of the lynching of Ed Johnsen are fascinating because they resulted in local officials being held in contempt of the Supreme Court of the United States, which had been reviewing the case, and raised all kinds of issues relating to federal supremacy in addition to those of race and prejudice in the American South.
The reason I mention the story, though, is because it popped into my head when I read my friends Dion and Maria’s account of what had happened in Mazar-e Sharif a few days ago when several innocent United Nations workers were brutally murdered because some fundamentalist crank in Florida thought it would be a hot idea to videotape himself burning a Quran. It was not that long ago, we should remind ourselves going into a discussion of what happened in northern Afghanistan and why, when the ugly kinds of mob scenes we saw in Mazar might have also happened in the United States. (The last lynching of an innocent black man of which I am aware took place in the American South in 1981.)
***
In my many travels through the Islamic world, there is both widespread admiration for the freedom of political speech we enjoy here in the United States as well as incomprehension regarding the freedom of religious speech we enjoy. It’s all well and good to be able to denounce the president, but why on Earth do we Americans allow people to speak ill of Jesus Christ, or the Virgin Mary, or Muhammad? If “freedom of speech” means watching some artist immerse a crucifix in urine or defecate on the Bible, no thanks. Because in the Islamic world (as well as in the region of the United States where I grew up), God isn’t some abstract idea, and Jesus and Muhammad were real prophets of God who should be venerated. A common refrain I hear, whether in Afghanistan or in the Arabic-speaking world, is that we Americans should have reasonable limits on what we can say and do regarding religious speech. And there is genuine incomprehension as to why we Americans would let a wing-nut like Terry Jones walk free? How could we allow him to do the things he does? He is obviously evil and is stirring up trouble, so why does the U.S. government not put him in jail? (This is often asked in the nations of Europe, too, which often have restrictions on “hate speech.”)
As a practicing, believing Christian, I honestly understand the frustration. I too am disgusted by cheap artistic stunts that denigrate the religious traditions of others and also rabble-rousing “pastors” who burn the Quran and think they are doing the Lord’s will. But as an American Christian, I am comfortable talking about how the United States was founded and why we all agree, in our social contract with one another, to not establish any laws that constrict one’s freedom to worship. We are a nation founded by the political and religious dissidents of Mother Europe, and we reject the ways the tired old nations of that continent forced us to worship in a certain way, or denied our right to free political speech and assembly.
We keep organized religion out of government, to protect the integrity of the government, and we keep the government out of organized worship, to protect a man’s freedom to worship God – or not worship God – as he pleases.
This is who we are as America. This is our DNA. Yesterday, I argued that we had some tough questions to ask about how much blood and treasure we should spend to promote the rights of women in Afghanistan. That’s an honest question we have to ask ourselves because our values balance against and compete with our security interests and other priorities. But with respect to Terry Jones, we have to defend his right to burn the Quran to the last one of us, no matter how foolish he is and no matter how much havoc he creates.
If opportunist clerics want to inflame a crowd in Afghanistan because one idiot out of 300+ million Americans does something grotesque and stupid, fine. In the YouTube era, there is nothing the U.S. government can do to prevent such gross provocations aside from denounce them ex post facto, and we are all, as global citizens, adjusting to this new reality where a speech act in the state of Florida can lead to a massacre in Balkh Province. But when the first U.S. soldier in Afghanistan dies because of the actions of Terry Jones, we can take comfort in that fact that he or she will not have died in vain. He or she will have died defending the very document he or she swore to protect in the first place.
I agree completely with what
I agree completely with what you said concerning freedom of religious speech and that it should be something we all should be prepared to die for as it is the essence of a dignified life in which you make your choices freely. I am also familiar with European anti-hate speech laws and have great reservations about them as they tend to do more harm than good in my opinion. The only case in which a certain expression of opinion should be punished, in my view, is when it is direct and clear incitement to commit a crime, in which case, it falls under the rules of criminal law. However, considering the nature of some religions, this would mean that Islamic sheikhs should be punished for everytime declare someone an 'outlaw of religion' in which case murdering them is not considered a crime under Islamic law. I wonder what you think of this..
"The last lynching of an
"The last lynching of an innocent black man of which I am aware took place in the American South in 1981." Why does it matter if he is innocent? Lynching defies the rule of law regardless of guilt.
A very persuasive argument
A very persuasive argument but nonetheless I disagree. Terry Jones is just inciting violence for reasons only known to himself in a time of "war." The people who rioted in Afghanistan do not live by American rules. As we have seen from the Mohammad cartoon rage in Europe to this Terry Jones embarrassment the State has to place some restraint when the country is engaged in multiple wars and our people are placed in the line of fire. I don't think our soldiers are worried about defending the constitution. They are more worried about survival in a hostile land fighting an enemy they cannot see. I think Brandenburg v. Ohio is a clear enough roadmap to restrain "Rev." Terry Jones. Free speech in the U.S. when it incites violence against our people elsewhere must be restrained.
"Why does it matter if he is
"Why does it matter if he is innocent?"
Becuz of the injustice wrought by religious fevor.
Is that a trick question? :)
@Gary - I don't believe
@Gary - I don't believe Jones' action can be considered an incitement. He wasn't trying to persuade anyone to commit violence (as far as we can know his mind), though that was the result.
Your thinking represents a threat to our democracy, sir.
Now, if you get so mad you hunt me down and kill me, have I incited you to violence?
Don't focus on Terry
Don't focus on Terry Jones.
Yes, he is a tool and represents the very worst of us. (Okay, since he doesn't actually star on "The Jersey Shore" maybe not the *very* worst but close...)
However, I'm much more disturbed by the reaction in Afghanistan. Not by the backwards savages who think beheading UN workers is a justified response to the burning of the Quaran but the government of Afghanistan itself. The fact that Hamid Karzai chose to televise his disgust with what happened in the US and to have that message repeated again and again on the local stations shows how little this partnership means to him. Condeming the actions of Jones is one thing. But he could have done it alongside General Petraeus and left it at that.
I may be wrong, but I have not heard Karzai speak out against the violence that occurred. I have not heard him seek to tone down threats of murder against those who choose to leave the Islamic faith. Instead, I hear a politician who is trying to appeal to the very basest emotions of his constituents without any effort to *lead* them to a more civilized state of governance.
I understand that this latter argument puts his position (and potentially his life) in danger. But I don't think its too much to ask the guy not to seize every opportunity that presents itself to show how vehemently "not an American puppet" he is...
Jones should be held accountable for his actions. A letter writing campaign, a censure by the Christian community, whatever. But so should the savages who claim Islam's right to kill be held accountable. Maybe this is happening and the story just isn't making it out but that's part of the reason I come to this blog, to get an idea of what I'm not seeing.
"when the first U.S. soldier
"when the first U.S. soldier in Afghanistan dies because of the actions of Terry Jones, we can take comfort in that fact that he or she will not have died in vain. He or she will have died defending the very document he or she swore to protect in the first place."
If the US Constitution is threatened by ANYTHING that happens in Afghanistan, we are in deep, deep trouble.
Whatever the hell we are doing in Afghanistan, it is not "defending the Constitution".
from my understanding, terry
from my understanding, terry jones was not trying exercise his free speach but in fact _was_ trying to incite violence. it seems to me that he got exactly what he wanted. he _wanted_ violence in the name of islam. he _wanted_ muslims to kill westerners. he _wanted_ a situation in which it would be easier for impressionable westerners to be able to dehumanize afghans as 'savages' and 'barbarians' because they will kill innocent people over a book while christians in the west have to face increased persecution (perceived or actual) from their liberal opponents.
I agree, law and government
I agree, law and government should be kept out of this completely. But if some Americans dance in the street and mimic rape, or if they burn Israeli maps and flags, most Americans won't cheer or yawn, they'll express their disgust, because such acts pick on very sore spots. Acts have different impacts depending on the specific context in which they're done, and picking a time when Muslims, both in the US and elsewhere, feel more persecuted than ever, is intensely insensitive.
Freedom of speech is essential, but civilised societies can use their values to ensure that it's not used to victimise vulnerable groups. I see almost none of that happening. Our one value should be freedom of speech, our other should be attempting to protect the vulnerable. Hopefully soldiers are there to protect both these values, not only one, because without either, we're stuffed.
In a strange and indirect
In a strange and indirect way, Pastor Jones' pyromania may be the road out of this fruitless circle-jerk of social engineering and nation building in Astan. Keep burning Pastor Jones, you crazy bastard!
Abu M, I'm going to evade the
Abu M,
I'm going to evade the substance of your post and instead focus on one factual assertion: "The last lynching of an innocent black man of which I am aware took place in the American South in 1981."
Google "Jasper Texas Lynching" or "James Byrd Lynching" and see what comes up.
Best
ADTS
"terry jones was not trying
"terry jones was not trying exercise his free speach but in fact _was_ trying to incite violence. it seems to me that he got exactly what he wanted. he _wanted_ violence in the name of islam."
If his goal was to demonstrate that Islam is a violent creed, he succeeded. No doubt, he was provocative—and see what he has provoked. Like the cartoonists who drew Muhammad, Jones prodded the world's Muslims into showing Islam's true colors. While the West still lies half-drowsy, sung to sleep by the lullaby that Islam is just a religion of peace, this simple, crude action by an obscure Florida pastor with no church behind him, no government support, and weird facial hair, has served as a wake-up call. If burning a book can “provoke” Muslims to burn and kill six thousand miles away, just how peaceful can their religion really be?
@:Liane, "Muslims, both in
@:Liane,
"Muslims, both in the US and elsewhere, feel more persecuted than ever, is intensely insensitive."
They are pretty damn good now and for the last 1400 years at persecution themselves, we can ask the Chaldean Iraqi's, Christians in Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Copts in Egypt, for that matter the Christians in the Left's beloved "Palestine". The Nazi's believed they were the victims of International Jewry right up until the very end, when they had already killed more than half the Jews in Europe.
When Terry Jones burned the Koran (a month ago) the Iranian Regime responded by burning 600 Bibles.
Didn't hear any outrage then.
And didn't see any heads coming off for Piss Christ, or the Madonna in dung, or the Madonna in porn mag strips.
Maybe we can learn from our Muslim Brothers.
@Exum - if your view - which is the Progressive One - of the Constitution becomes widespread, people will stop believing in it and stop defending it. And that era of American History (but not I suspect America) will be over.
You can't have a country, a Nation, a People - and we are all these things - based just on a Constitution, a Government, and Law. You also need to safeguard the culture, beliefs, mores and traditions of that people.
From which self government, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution sprung, or rather grew.
And it's no Victory when one of these reactionary stone age culture wild beasts kills any of our soldiers, for any reason.
I agree with the general
I agree with the general point. Freedom of speech is part of the American character. It has to be defended, with blood and lives if necessary.
But this sentence: "we can take comfort in that fact that he or she will not have died in vain." bothers me on a couple levels. We might take comfort in it as we discuss policy and ideals. But the dead grunt won't. His family won't. His buddies won't. They'll just see a dead American because some radical preacher sitting comfy in Florida couldn't keep his trap shut.
That'll just widen the divide between civilian and military just a little bit more. I went to Iraq as a lance corporal and most of the guys I served with didn't much care about abstract concepts and ideals. They just wanted to know if they were going to get shot at tomorrow. And if some guy back in Florida just pissed off everyone over here, then they're going to be more than a little mad that some guy whose neck isn't on the line is making everything more dangerous for them.
We have that same freedom of speech, too. Even as we defend people like Terry Jones and their right to speak, we should exercise that same right and condemn what they do. Because it's not in keeping with the rest of the American character.
Off-topic:
Found this blog through the NYTimes, and I'm impressed both about it and CNAS (wish I'd heard of it sooner).
Most of our contempt should
Most of our contempt should be aimed at the religious leaders who got the ball rolling on the rioting in Afghanistan. They cared more about defending the pride of their religion from a slight committed on the other side of the world, than the lives that were lost because of their riot-rousing.
Excellent post, these are my
Excellent post, these are my feelings as a religious person as well. Teryy Jones is a bastard but he's well within his rights. Not everything legal is moral, and just because one CAN do it doesn't mean one OUGHT to, but our govenment has no business trying to erode the distinction by censoring free (if disgusting and provocative) speech.
"But with respect to Terry
"But with respect to Terry Jones, we have to defend his right to burn the Quran to the last one of us, no matter how foolish he is and no matter how much havoc he creates."
Only so long as the judiciary deems his stunt to be protected speech.
What I want answered --
What I want answered -- urgently -- is if the reality of the 'YouTube era' precludes a victorious pop-centric COIN strategy, no matter how well resourced, no matter how well executed.
I would like to see an entry addressing this question in the next few days.
Maybe the good reverand needs
Maybe the good reverand needs to stand a post with rifle or move as point man in Kandahar for a year, perhaps that might change his persepctive. Nothing like true, actual, physical, mortal fear on a daily basis for a year to change a man's persepctive on things.
Has he ever served his nation in the uniform of the armed services?
The guy is a tool, but i guess in America as Andrew points out, that is everybody's right
gian
The last lynching of a black
The last lynching of a black man may have been in 1981. The last killing of a black man was more recent. The last mob killing of a person was a gay man and that was much more recent.
If America was in a mess like Afghanistan is, I don't think "American values" would prevent a lot of lawless mob violence.
As for Terry Jones. His actions were despicable because he knew the consequences and chose to inflict them on other people. If he wanted to demonstrate how awful Muslims are, he should have gone to Afghanistan to burn his Koran and borne the consequences personally.
One thing that might add some
One thing that might add some perspective to the entire debate is some clear idea on what Islam really stands for, what it really says, and how all of this affects Muslim-Americans.
Personally I'd say the
Personally I'd say the biggest tools are those who craft grandiose policies that can be upended by one preacher in Florida.
I completely agree that Terry
I completely agree that Terry Jones's actions are horrible and reprehensible. Even if he was *right* to burn the Qur'an (and I don't think he was) it was still a stupid thing to do, and also a cowardly thing to do. (If he really likes burning Qur'ans then he can show the courage of his convictions by burning his next one in a main street in Kabul.) I also completely agree that, no matter how stupid it was of him to insult the religion of around a billion people, US law protects his right to do so, and it must, in order to protect other, valuable speech. (Just as we have to give fair trials to the guilty, in order to protect the innocent.)
But Terry Jones is only protected *legally* (and from violence, of course, as he should be). He's not protected socially or religiously. It used to be the case in this country that, yes you had the right to say nearly anything, but there were certain things that you could say that would get you disinvited from every social event and make you lose all your friends and have your family try to pretend that you didn't exist. And Terry Jones is *also* not protected from other people's free speech, particularly potent in the youtube era. The best response to that cowardly, self-promoting pastor is public mockery, denigration, shunning by other religious leaders, and so on. The law stays out of these free-speech issues precisely so that other people's free speech can take care of them. It's time someone did a youtube take-down of the man like they did to Gaddafi (that dance-remix of one of his threatening speeches). The one thing that people like this cannot bear is to be laughed at and scorned. Angry denunciations and threats of lawsuits only play to their egos, make them happier, and convince them that they're right. But the power of social and religious alienation, the power of our own free speech to make them look like ridiculous, cowardly pond-scum... that is what they really fear.
Just my thoughts. Best wishes,
Beren
I completely agree that Terry
I completely agree that Terry Jones's actions are horrible and reprehensible. Even if he was *right* to burn the Qur'an (and I don't think he was) it was still a stupid thing to do, and also a cowardly thing to do. (If he really likes burning Qur'ans then he can show the courage of his convictions by burning his next one in a main street in Kabul.) I also completely agree that, no matter how stupid it was of him to insult the religion of around a billion people, US law protects his right to do so, and it must, in order to protect other, valuable speech. (Just as we have to give fair trials to the guilty, in order to protect the innocent.)
But Terry Jones is only protected *legally* (and from violence, of course, as he should be). He's not protected socially or religiously. It used to be the case in this country that, yes you had the right to say nearly anything, but there were certain things that you could say that would get you disinvited from every social event and make you lose all your friends and have your family try to pretend that you didn't exist. And Terry Jones is *also* not protected from other people's free speech, particularly potent in the youtube era. The best response to that cowardly, self-promoting pastor is public mockery, denigration, shunning by other religious leaders, and so on. The law stays out of these free-speech issues precisely so that other people's free speech can take care of them. It's time someone did a youtube take-down of the man like they did to Gaddafi (that dance-remix of one of his threatening speeches). The one thing that people like this cannot bear is to be laughed at and scorned. Angry denunciations and threats of lawsuits only play to their egos, make them happier, and convince them that they're right. But the power of social and religious alienation, the power of our own free speech to make them look like ridiculous, cowardly pond-scum... that is what they really fear.
Just my thoughts. Best wishes,
Beren
"Nothing like true, actual,
"Nothing like true, actual, physical, mortal fear on a daily basis for a year to change a man's persepctive on things. "
He is afraid of physical attack right now -- and I wouldn't be surprised if it happens.
"Has he ever served his nation in the uniform of the armed services?"
Is that a prerequisite for having an opinion on Islam or Middle Eastern politics now? Fuck off with that chickenhawk crap.
Oh Gawd, no of course it
Oh Gawd,
no of course it isnt, but he is doing more than just having an informed opinion on the middle east and islam since his actions very well may be putting American lives at risk in Afghanistan, and for what, for him to make an ideological point and get media attention?
gian
Ok as a European I guess I'll
Ok as a European I guess I'll have to defend the Hate Speech or Incitement of Hatred Laws that we have since I think it is an important law. I view the prime justification of these laws which in most cases clearly connect "inciting people to commit acts of violence against ethnic or religious minorities" as something sadly made clear to Europe during its history (in both the Holocaust and in Serbia) as well as during Rwanda and the role played by certain radio hosts in inciting and organising the massacres there.
Americans should remember that "Freedom of Speech" while noble and important to Democracy was written over 200 years ago when the world was vastly different and also before the emergance of many of the genocides of the 20th Century.
As figures like Hitler and like Milosevich showed charismatic leaders can speak venom and manipulate people into committing inhuman deeds. It is this reason that after the massacres in the former Yugoslavia that one of the first laws passed in Serbia after Milosevich was laws against incitement of hatred and why Germany also has harsh "hate speech" laws that can carry up to 5 years in prison.
Also on an American centric note I do think that if say a Grand Wizard for the KKK speaks to his followers and encourages them in the speech to go out and lynch a black person that he does share criminal responsibilty if his followers than go through with it. Under US Law at present that person would not be charged with any crime and would be free to continue inciting acts of violence.
This is not to imply that Europeans are not free to express themselves. They are and members of the public generally can say what they want. But when someone starts organising a platform of movement based on ethnic or religious violence they step out from just expression an opinion and become a threat to society.
of yourself. How in the hell
of yourself. How in the hell is burning a koran exercising a "informed opinion on the middle east"? Burning a koran truyly exhibits one sort of opinion: that Jones doesn't like Islam. It's not some sort of sophisticated "opinion" about foreign policy. In our nation, we get to express opinions such as "hating Islam" or "hating Christianity" or "hating (you name it)"
The fact that this is putting our soldiers in more danger in Afghanistan is the price we have to pay for living in such a free society. Are you saying that this cost is too high?
@Dr Marcos "Under US Law at
@Dr Marcos
"Under US Law at present that person would not be charged with any crime and would be free to continue inciting acts of violence."
That's only partially true. If he made a general statement that blacks should be lynched, he'd be safe from prosecution. If he specifically singled out a man to be attacked immediately following his speech, then he would be criminally liable. The most recent US Supreme Court precedent is Brandenburg v. Ohio.
"[C]onstitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
I imagine the rationale being that even if such a man were to give a hateful speech, he himself does not commit a physical act of violence. His followers are presumably adults of sound mind (legally. at least) and are capable of making their own decisions, and are thus the only ones responsible for their own actions.
Assuming this was motivated
Assuming this was motivated by the Koran burning and wasn't a pointed message to the UN/US --->
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/MD05Df03.html <---------
On the scales of justice: burning a Koran vs Killing 20 innocents.
Edge - Literally - killing 20 innocents, beheading 2.
Apologize for this past and quite current part of Islam - which seems to be the dominant strain - as much as liked.
You're in good Company with your President, and King Dave.
Wars are not won by apology.
Let's see, the Iranians burnt 600 Bibles in response to Terry Jones. Does that mean Christians can kill 12,000 Muslims, 1200 by beheading?
"When you meet the Infidels, you shall smite their necks". You don't have to burn the book, just read and believe it.
Dr Marcos, The idea that hate
Dr Marcos,
The idea that hate laws are necessary to protect against genocide displays an ignorance of the historical record. Hitler violated many of the laws of his time (and was even thrown in jail). What did that accomplish? The soviet union had more humane laws than the US (such as no death penalty) but that did not stop them from killing millions of their own. For that matter, what has current European hate speech laws done to stop the rise of far right parties in France, Austrian, and what use to be eastern Germany? I
You can get them banned. You can force them underground. But that will only make them cooler in the eyes of those most attracted to those types of ideas.
As for myself, if someone comes along and wants to wipe all the bearded ignorant hillbillies off the face the map, I would like lots of heads up (being one myself). And if lots of my fellow Americans are receptive to such ideas, I have problems that no law will fix.
What bothers me most about this whole affair is that the real villain (at least as far as America is concerned) is being let off the hook.
I mean, Terry Jones has less members in his church than half a dozen back wood churches in my immediate neighborhood. Yet the national media does not see fit to report on what those pastors are saying. Why are we shaking our fingers at one crack pot and ignoring those people trying to profit off of the crackpot (i.e the media)? When Terry Jones did his thing, I got the impression that many people in the media where hyping it just so that there would be violence and thus a story.
We keep organized religion
You've obviously not made it out here to Utah, have you Ex?
maybe if we all didn't
maybe if we all didn't believe in this superstitious nonsense, this wouldn't be an issue. am i wrong to say that religion has done more to divide us than bring us together?
surely i can't be the only atheist in the foxhole.
"he is doing more than just
"he is doing more than just having an informed opinion on the middle east and islam since his actions very well may be putting American lives at risk in Afghanistan, and for what, for him to make an ideological point and get media attention?"
His point is more than an "ideological" one (as if that means it is unimportant in a war of ideas). His point - and his act - cuts to the heart of what we're trying to do in the region. As someone else on this blog remarked, if a single Koran burning can seriously undermine our regional strategy, then that strategy needs an agonizing reappraisal because it rests on some very shaky foundations.
I would argue that the "Islam is a religion of peace" ideologues and dhimmis in the US government and military have put MANY more American lives at risk - and actually gotten many more Americans killed - in Afghanistan, the Middle East, and worldwide than has Pastor Jones.
The fact that this is putting
Actually, to be even more specific, it's the price we pay for having troops in Afghanistan.
Obama and our elected government are many times more responsible for the deaths of American soldiers than the preacher.
But it's funny how they never like to talk about responsibility in such indirect and nebulous terms when they're talking about themselves, isn't it?
"In my many travels through
"In my many travels through the Islamic world, there is both widespread admiration for the freedom of political speech we enjoy here in the United States as well as incomprehension regarding the freedom of religious speech we enjoy."
Yeah, they still don't get the Enlightenment, and neither do our people, my Dixie paisan.
'CNAS retains the right to
'CNAS retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.'
I was struck by these words on the comments policy here after reading your post and going through the comments here. Unintended irony.
The very notion that soldiers
The very notion that soldiers in Afghanistan are protecting the constitution is ridiculous. Do you seriously mean that we are bombing people to defend the constitution ? Ironically , killing people to protect the sanctity of a book is exactly what you are condemning.
"dont be a jerk" while
"dont be a jerk" while commenting ? Miss the irony any ?
I think this is an example of
I think this is an example of how various societies around the World have progressed to different levels of human development and understanding. That doesn't automatically mean that certain societies have not devolved to some degree as well. (I could make that case for many aspects of American culture and society.) To view Afghanistan through the prism of Western values and tradition is a mistake. To ask people who have very little experience with Western "values" to understand those values is to discount the history, traditions, and uniqueness of each, individual society, and its culture. A wrong has been committed in their minds. I think the best course is to offer an olive branch - in what form, I don't know. (Personally, a withdrawal from their lands might be a good start.)
They are where they are, and we are where we are.
Yes, that may sound simplistic, but sometimes a view unencumbered by endless analysis can be liberating.
"Out beyond ideas of rightdoing and wrongdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there." - ???
Outstanding post and I
Outstanding post and I forwarded this on to my Facebook crew. My thoughts about this are that books can be copied and reprinted, but humans will never be replaced or copied. Terry Jones burned a book, and that was his crime. These protesters in Afghanistan killed and maimed humans and their crimes against humanity far out weigh anything Terry Jones has done. The religious leaders in Afghanistan that allowed this crime or even fueled it, have done Islam a huge disservice and should be ashamed.....These are not leaders, they are tyrants and the stains of the human race. That is my take on the whole thing.
The idea that Jones is
The idea that Jones is responsible for the murders is based on the racist premise that Muslims are not morally responsible for their actions. No one would similarly blame the Iranian regime if I went down to the local Iranian supermarket and killed its owners, under the pretext that some ayatollahs burned a bible.
Whatever you think of Jones' action, Muslims are autonomous moral agents who are responsible for their actions. They are human beings. Unfortunately, a lot of white people have trouble treating them as such, and consider them instead to be the moral equivalent of dogs, i.e. an inferior form of life that can not be held to the same moral standards as non-Muslims.
The idea that Jones is
The idea that Jones is responsible for the murders is based on the racist premise that Muslims are not morally responsible for their actions. No one would similarly blame the Iranian regime if I went down to the local Iranian supermarket and killed its owners, under the pretext that some ayatollahs burned a bible.
Whatever you think of Jones' action, Muslims are autonomous moral agents who are responsible for their actions. They are human beings. Unfortunately, a lot of white people have trouble treating them as such, and consider them instead to be the moral equivalent of dogs, i.e. an inferior form of life that can not be held to the same moral standards as non-Muslims.
Yes it's time to really be an
Yes it's time to really be an Enlightened Liberal and treat men as men, rather than the latest in a long, dismal line of other than white guinea pigs in a 100 year plus program of social engineering. In real engineering when you continuously fail you recognize the design is flawed. In this as in every other case the failure is to acknowledge Human nature, that people have and will exercise free will, aren't infinitely plastic, and have their own agendas.
@Dixie paisan Visitor: IMO the Enlightenment died in Europe in 1914, and died in the USA in the 1960s. And it's not that we and the little Brown Brothers "don't get it". It's that it's being rejected, at least in it's current degenerate form.
We and the little Brown Brothers are simply being atavistic in returning to type. Fine. When we get leaders who actually represent America - as Europe is in the process of getting leaders who actually represent them - rather than a slim slice of the population that represents the transnational elites and their interests and views, we'll have an honest fight.
And we shall see our enemies on the field. Then we shall see indeed.
I agree that the state should
I agree that the state should not arrest him, just as it shouldnt arrest someone for burning the american flag. I reserve my right of free expression to kick the shit out of him if he ever crosses the atlantic, though. The man has said clearly that the death of lieutenant colonel Siri Skare and 6 of her co-workers were succesful fruits of his premeditated actions. I hereby invite him to Norway, I would love to meet him.
I wish some of these anti-muslim folks would have the courage to actually go face to face with their opponents, instead of hiding at home. Its the same as with all fascists: They never go for the strong people, the ones with an ability to fight back. they prefer to terrorize kids and civilians in general, insult and provoke.
PS: I like my hate
PS: I like my hate speech-laws just fine. It means that I can say that I think The Catholic Church is run by Satan and the worlds oldest pedophile-ring, but not for me to say that I think all catholics should be burned, or that they are all pedophiles.
Oh, and for those of you shocked, SHOCKED by the killings: Mazar has been under occupation for over 8 years now. We, NATO, kill civilians in Afghanistan every month. If I was under occupation and somebody from the occupying countries pissed on my flag, I would get pretty annoyed too.
Andrew do you honestly
Andrew do you honestly believe that this is what we are over there for ?
"I argued that we had some tough questions to ask about how much blood and treasure we should spend to promote the rights of women in Afghanistan. "
On everything else I agree a 100% you explained very well why america as a nation needs to protect freedom of speech, even if sometimes it means giving it to dumb dangerous idiots.
J.
See you that 'dhimmi' and
See you that 'dhimmi' and raise you a 'hasbara'.
stay in Norway all you want,
stay in Norway all you want, and please do so. I ain't coming over there anytime soon. Freedom of speech means you don't differentiate between calling Catholic clergy pedophiles and burning Korans. By doing so you are trying to impose your "moral superiority" over the rest of us by stopping speech you don't like. Typical modern liberal ideology by the way. You can feel that way and use the democratic process to press your views, but in a true free society you don't silence the opposition, you prove you are right. At least for now, when it comes to freedom of speech we in the U.S. are all in baby and I'm glad I'm here and not in Norway.
haha, what IS the mission,
haha, what IS the mission, Andrew.
Dumbass America is digging her own grave pushing missionary democracy on people that will NEVER take it.
Look at what it is costing America you preening scold.
And you are getting NOTHING from it.
The mini-surge FAILED, there is no exit strategy.
From now on everyday there are more Taliban, every Friday is a day of rage, everyday some dumbass crusader commits an atrocity, and every day is another day closer to the world seeing America run like a whipped cur.
This isn't that hard.
Shariah law forbids proselytization.
Free speech legalizes proselytization.
Freedom of speech is INCOMPATIBLE with current current quranic exegesis and islamic jurisprudence.
So what IS the mission, Andrew?
Religion is symbolic.
Jones was symbolically burning al-Islam when he burnt the Quran. The Afghanis were symbolically killing crusaders when they killed the UN workers.
Big White Christian Bwana go home.
Add your comment