As I mentioned last week, Terry Jones — a minister at the ironically named Dove World Outreach Center — is organizing a burning of Korans to mark September 11. That strikes me as both largely pointless, non-substantive rudeness (as opposed to fair and substantive criticism of Islam, which would be perfectly proper) and as largely counterproductive to any realistic attempt to try to convert people from Islam to Christianity. In fact, it plays into the hands of those who are trying to associate American criticism of Islam — including more substantive, reasoned criticism — with angry, substance-free extremism.
But it seems to me that the response from Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (as quoted in this New York Times national feed story) itself plays precisely into Terry Jones’ hands. Here’s what Hooper was quoted as saying:
“Can you imagine what this will do to our image around the world?” said Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington. “And the additional danger it will add whenever there is an American presence in Iraq or Afghanistan?”
Unless I’m misreading this, Hooper is pointing out that violent Muslims might react to Jones’ symbolic expression by trying to kill American soldiers — and apparently suggesting that Jones should be held responsible for this reaction by violent Muslims.
This of course reminds people about the violent strains of Islam, and the danger those strains pose. But it also shows how some spokespeople for mainstream Islam (here, Hooper) are willing to use the actions by their violent coreligionists as a tool for suppressing non-Muslims’ alleged blasphemies and insults. That is precisely the image of mainstream Islam, it seems to me, that Terry Jones is trying to foster. I doubt that this was a cunning plan on Jones’ part, but that seems to be the effect.
Now of course there is a legitimate role in life for warnings of others’ possible crimes, even if those warnings end up deterring people’s speech, symbolic expression, and other legal and even constitutionally protected behavior. (I’m setting aside the fact that this Koran-burning might be legally punishable because it violates a general city ban on open burning; I take it that Hooper’s argument is not that insurgents in Afghanistan will be more likely to attack Americans because Gainesville is allowing undue fire risks, and that he would have the same reaction to plans in a city which had a less restrictive fire code.)
But there is a big difference, it seems to me, between different kids of warnings. If your mother tells you, “Don’t become an abortion doctor, someone might kill you,” you might be annoyed, or might refuse to let your actions be guided by such a fear; but you’re probably going to be satisfied that she is acting out of a disinterested desire to keep you safe. Likewise if a public-spirited commentator with no axe to grind as to labor disputes says — in an environment where there had been violence by some extremist labor union members — “It would probably be better if people not cross the picket line at Factory X, since that sort of thing is likely to make a tense situation even worse, and maybe even violent.”
On the other hand, if a leader of an anti-abortion group — even a group that itself does not engage in violence — starts warning people that “Can you imagine the additional danger that building this clinic will create to innocent bystanders who might be in the line of fire?,” I think we’d have a different reaction. Likewise if a leader of a union says, “Can you imagine the additional danger that crossing the picket line will add, given that some people have already been willing to get violent over this labor dispute?”
In those situations, the mainstream group representative seems to be consciously using the threat of extremist violence [UPDATE: just to reaffirm what I noted above, the threat of others' extremist violence] to achieve his own ideological goals. And he also seems to be trying to blame the people who are exercising their rights for the violence that would supposedly ensue. This sort of political tactic does not reflect well on the mainstream group.
So neither Dove World Outreach Center nor the Council on American-Islamic Relations has displayed itself to advantage here. But the difference is that Dove World likely has no realistic aspirations to being seen as a responsible, mainstream institution.
CAIR does have such aspirations. And those aspirations are not advanced by attempts to prevent blasphemy and insult using warnings of violent Muslim retaliation — and by attempts to partly shift (or at least broaden) the blame for such religious violence to include Americans who dare to provoke the Muslim extremists.
UPDATE: An analogy: Imagine (God forbid) that there’s such a large spate of violent attacks on Muslims in America level that American Muslims are at roughly the same the risk of violence from violent anti-Muslim extremists as Americans in Iraq or Afghanistan are from violent Muslim extremists. And say that that people who are already trying to prevent the building of the proposed near-Ground-Zero cultural center and mosque — people who are not themselves violent, and who themselves issue statements condemning anti-Muslim violence — add to their arguments this one: “Can you imagine the additional danger this provocative mosque will create for Muslims in America?”
Is this just fine? Or is there something improper about (1) these hypothetical critics’ trying to achieve their ideological goals by pointing to the risk of violence by those who share the critics’ ends (but who implement them through violent means) and (2) the critics’ trying to suggest that the mosque builders would be partly responsible for the violence?
(Note that this doesn’t require a judgment that the near-Ground-Zero mosque would be equivalent as a matter of morals or manners to Koran-burning — only that they are both legally and constitutionally protected, and, much more importantly, that the arguments against both point to the risk that they will provoke violence.)
yaz says:
But, but what Ibrahim Hooper said is true. There very likely will be violent reaction, retaliation, revenge, and retarded retrograde retribution.
August 30, 2010, 3:19 pmAbdul Abulbul Amir says:
Not true, it is a religion of peace.
August 30, 2010, 3:23 pmrilkefan says:
I think you’re playing fast and loose with “responsible” here. People get to say, “Action A will likely lead to result R” without implying they think R is justified on the basis of A.
August 30, 2010, 3:26 pmptt says:
I’m having trouble reading that as anything like, “How can we tolerate this immense insult to the Prophet!?!?!?”, which you’d think someone troubled by blasphemy might say.
I had the same thought. Maybe I’m a secret Muslim and don’t even know it!
August 30, 2010, 3:27 pmChris Travers says:
EV. I think you are misreading Mr Hooper’s statement. I think it’s a simple observation that success in Iraq, and the safety of US troops there depends largely on the goodwill of the Iraqis and he is saying that would be damaged by this action. It isn’t just that people might try to attack Americans due to it, but that they might be less enthusiastic about helping us protect ourselves.
This being said, you are right that this plays into the hands of those who believe that we are at war with Islam. There are far more offensive but productive things that CAIR could be doing. For example, I personally think that if they were to make a point to the whole world as to how far hate speech is protected in this country (maybe by posting cartoons that might land folks with jail time if done in Germany) that would be a good thing. It would demonstrate to the rest of the world that there is no double standard and that we can take as much as we can give in that area.
CAIR should have a “National Hate Speech” celebration to protest with contests on who can say the most vile, Constitutionally protected things.
August 30, 2010, 3:27 pmOwen H. says:
Seems to me it is saying it will make us look bad (it will), and that alone makes it harder and more dangerous. It shows that some here consider all Islam to be our enemy, which can only help the terrorists. If you keep treating someone as your enemy, eventually you will convince him.
This pastor and his flock are doing a great job of showing that Christianity is religion of peace.
August 30, 2010, 3:29 pmEugene Volokh says:
rilkefan: Actually, my sense is that “A should be held responsible for R” does not necessarily mean that R is justified on the basis of A — only that A is culpable as well as R.
To give an example outside the provocation context, you might say “The police department should be held responsible for failing to properly guard this abortion clinic against violent attack” without concluding that the violent attack is justified. You’re only saying that the police department didn’t do enough to protect the clinic. Likewise, saying that a speaker should be held responsible for outrageous reactions to his speech does not itself mean that you think the outrageous reactions are justified.
August 30, 2010, 3:30 pmA. Cooper says:
I think Hooper can be read somewhat differently. I don’t see his aim as primarily to prevent blasphemy–though that may be one of his objectives. On this reading, he is pointing out that America’s claim that our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are *not* wars on Islam are undercut when there is widespread and vocal anti-Islam stupidity at home. It’s not that he wants to prevent defamation of Islam; rather he wants to prevent defamation of *America*, or worse, an America of which the defamatory claims are true.
August 30, 2010, 3:32 pmByomtov says:
the mainstream group representative seems to be consciously using the threat of extremist violence to achieve his own ideological goals. And he also seems to be trying to blame the people who are exercising their rights for the violence that would supposedly ensue.
I think you are wrong here. The analogies you cite, anti-abortion and union violence, contain barely implicit threats of action by the speaker. Do you think Hooper is intending to threaten anyone? And what are these “ideological goals” you think he’s pursuing? If it’s OK for a non-Muslim to warn of possible consequences, why isn’t it OK for a Muslim, who may in fact have a better sense of the outrage other Muslims will feel over the burning? What should he do or say if he honestly believes the danger he describes is significant? Keep quiet?
Note too that the warning is realistic. Per the linked article Muslims in other countries are reacting negatively to the planned burning. To ascribe an ulterior motive to Hooper without some basis other than your analogies is unfair.
[EV responds: I specifically hypothesized leaders of groups that are mainstream groups, and that "do[] not [themselves] engage in violence.” The mainstream anti-abortion or union speakers would not be threatening violence that would be carried out by them themselves. Rather, they would be arguing that certain behavior — that they themselves disapprove of, and would like to prevent — might provoke violent behavior by anti-abortion extremists or union extremists.]
August 30, 2010, 3:34 pmrilkefan says:
With some violent adherents, like many [all?] faiths. Maybe those aren’t true Muslims by some abstract accounting, or very confused or misled ones, but you’ll have to do a lot of work to show they should be excluded from the plain meaning of the term.
August 30, 2010, 3:37 pmrilkefan says:
But that reading’s on you. I won’t get hit by a drunk driver if I stay off the road. I’m not culpable for getting hit if I drive to work and someone blotto rams me from behind while I’m stopped at a traffic light. If you walk to the library you’re at a higher risk of getting shot by a maniac enraged by the success of Stephen King; you’re not in any way culpable for having gone there.
August 30, 2010, 3:44 pmChris Travers says:
I’d be interested in what you think of this paper. I think the ICG makes some errors in it, but I wonder what you think about their overall view on the discussion over whether Islam is a religion of peace (in the first few pages).
August 30, 2010, 3:48 pmPedro says:
The Tolerance(TM) We-Only-Except-Christianist-Zionist-NASCAR-Beliefs Democratic Multiculti PC Brigade has arrived here at Volokh in full force, defending the indefensible.
August 30, 2010, 3:49 pmrilkefan says:
“the mainstream group representative seems to be consciously using the threat of extremist violence to achieve his own ideological goals”
Are you pro-CAIR? Can I not by your standard think this post tries to suppress dissent by the conscious misuse of threats of violence by others?
August 30, 2010, 3:50 pmEugene Volokh says:
No, rilkefan, I’m pretty sure that “Jones should be held responsible for this reaction by violent Muslims” (my interpretation of Hooper’s statements) does not carry with it the necessary (or even likely implication) that the violent reaction is proper — only that Jones is responsible together with the violent Muslims.
August 30, 2010, 3:54 pmfalafalafocus says:
Where do you see that in EV’s post?
August 30, 2010, 3:58 pmSteve says:
This kind of anti-Islamic crap does, in fact, make it easier for al-Qaeda to recruit followers by arguing the U.S. is a bigoted, Muslim-hating place. That point seems difficult to dispute. Sure, al-Qaeda is still evil, and people who choose to join al-Qaeda bear responsibility for their actions. I don’t see how any of that changes the point.
August 30, 2010, 3:59 pmMark Field says:
There’s another way to see this as well, namely that burning the books creates a pseudo-excuse for violence. That is, someone planning violence anyway can now say, “I did it in retaliation for burning our holy book.” That’s not a good reason, but it confuses the issue and lends a seeming justification to the terrorist, just as calling a man’s wife a whore may seem to justify violence in retaliation.
Now, this is something nobody should worry about when doing something that’s right and justified on its own. But when the act in question is pointless and offensive in its own right, then the fact that there may be retaliation becomes relevant. In short, we should never worry about retaliation when doing right, but needless insult is always a bad idea.
Further evidence, I suppose, that the American Taliban needs its foreign counterparts as much as they need our domestic ones.
August 30, 2010, 3:59 pmwfjag says:
Then, perhaps Mr. Hooper should explain to his co-religionists the meaning of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I’m not thrilled by the Winsboro Baptist Church’s activities, either. However, I don’t think those activities justify killing its members or anyone else. That’s the other side of tolerance — you have to tolerate the expression of viewpoints you disagree with.
August 30, 2010, 4:04 pmGJ says:
Eugene, I think you’re misreading Hooper’s comments by reading “should” into it. This is rilkefan’s point. You’re reading is “Jones should be held responsible for this reaction by violent Muslims.” But what he says is that if Jones burns Korans, “it will add” an additional danger to troops overseas. You read Hooper as promising or endorsing retribution (“If you do X, you should face consequence Y”), when in fact I think he is making an entirely different point: if you do X, extremists will run out and do Z.
August 30, 2010, 4:06 pmPedro says:
only that Jones is responsible together with the violent Muslims.
By that reckoning, America incited 9-11 for its deeds real and imagined, and violent zealots only went too far. How is this not like a short-skirted woman in the pool hall who turns down a burly man sharing the blame in her own assault?
August 30, 2010, 4:11 pmDG says:
{But, but what Ibrahim Hooper said is true. There very likely will be violent reaction, retaliation, revenge, and retarded retrograde retribution.}
I am not a fan of CAIR, which is much less a civil rights group than it is a mildly anti-American advocacy group. That being said, Hooper is right. He’s not just right, he’s 100% right. You can make up hypotheticals about abortion clinics all day long, but the fact is, this is precisely the kind of stuff that Jihadis use to recruit. That certainly is not a good reason to forbid it, but patriotic Americans should always ponder the implications of their actions – including those actions 100% protected by the 1st Amendment – while we are at war. This is our obligation as citizens.
If Hooper and CAIR limited their (usual) idiocy and stuck to useful observations like this, I’d actually be a fan.
August 30, 2010, 4:17 pmLessinSF says:
Who cares what the insane (faith = belief despite evidence to the contrary) think or say, other than to know when to duck?
August 30, 2010, 4:20 pmBiggles says:
The other Terry Jones weighs in on the controversy…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F67JhKT5bxU
August 30, 2010, 4:23 pmAriel says:
Many of those excusing CAIR’s statement are not aware of the sort of shell game played by the “moderates” (including Hooper) and the extremists. The idea is to create a group in the image of “moderates” which constantly threatens violence by its extremist counterparts. In the case of CAIR, they are unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation case and can’t seem to find an extremist Muslim that they would identify as terrorist. Prof. Volokh is rightly pointing out that CAIR’s statement, in the context of their other actions and statements, cannot be read as anything but a threat of violence by their more extremist coreligionists.
August 30, 2010, 4:29 pmlgm says:
E.V., opponents of the Islam in America use almost the same argument – that building will embolden violent Muslims to strike America — that preventing mosques from being built keeps America safe. You can hear this claim on Fox News every night. Clearly, the CAIR memo was worded so as to mimic the radical Christianist message in a way that would expose it for the malarkey that it is.
Paul Krugman in today’s NYTimes says something similar.
It’s a shame that you complain about CAIR but not the violent radicals on the other side.
August 30, 2010, 4:31 pmSteve says:
Actually, I don’t think Prof. Volokh is a member of your “CAIR is just al-Qaeda by another name” club, although a few of his co-bloggers seem to be.
August 30, 2010, 4:31 pmrilkefan says:
You need to point to a philosophical model of responsibility if you want to be understood when making such statements. I’m a physicist, and a hard-core determinist: I think everything in the past light cone of any event is entirely responsible for what happens, because of causality. When you use the word “responsible” to any other kind of person without a couple of weighty tomes of definition in hand, they will hear “is at least partly to blame for”. For want of a nail the kingdom was lost; is the guy who misplaced a nail responsible for the loss of the kingdom?
August 30, 2010, 4:40 pmPedro says:
“That certainly is not a good reason to forbid it, but patriotic Americans should always ponder the implications of their actions — including those actions 100% protected by the 1st Amendment — while we are at war. This is our obligation as citizens.”
And women wearing short skirts in pool halls should be careful how they turn down men, else they’re partially at fault?
Dissenting Democrat “patriots” didn’t care about our servicemembers being put in greater harm’s way by the war protest and the American blame game. Dissenters from Islam should be equally free to say their piece about whom they regard as the enemy.
Imo, our obligation as U.S. citizens is to support unfettered political, ideological speech. Personally, I would never burn a book and don’t care for cheap theatrics. But whatever, and that goes for CAIR, too. It’s all drama, and if Muslims want to build an offending GZM, let ‘em. It’s just that CAIR’s logic of Muslim as constant victim of American policy and speech doesn’t suspend disbelief enough for many of us to buy into the movie.
August 30, 2010, 4:44 pmChris Travers says:
I agree. Hence my suggestion for a Hate Speech Celebration with contests on who can say the most vile thing to show off the lengths the 1st Amendment goes to protect speech in this country. Things like “Too bad the Holocaust wasn’t successful,” repeating the statements that got Brandenburg in trouble (which are even more offensive), and the like.
They could have a fun contest with this. They could advertise it as an off-color celebration of the freedom of speech in this country. Obviously in the context of a contest, “intended and likely to cause imminent lawless harm” would be a hard bar to meet for prosecutors. And it would show the world how seriously we take freedom of speech.
August 30, 2010, 4:46 pmwhit says:
but are cops who leave a decoy car unlocked “responsible” for “manufacturing” a crime?
oh wait, nevermind…
August 30, 2010, 4:49 pmKamal says:
I think the point is that if you can believe that burning a book will “teach our enemies” like this guy believes, and don’t realize your just venting your bigoted beliefs, trying to debate is a no-win situation. It’s as if people belief that a really well thought out rational argument on why it’s wrong to generalize the characteristics of a person based on a hasty generalization of a group they belong to would have swayed Hitler. There is no point debating people who have irrational beliefs. Look at the recent controversy over the community center/(“Mosque”). It’s objectively wrong to associate the actions of Al Qaeda with Islam, and those that refuse to understand the weakness of that link are unable to be reasoned with.
August 30, 2010, 4:50 pmfrankcross says:
I think you’re just making up in your own mind, EV, the part about “being responsible” for. There was no “responsible” in the statement. This is a descriptive statement. It does suggest that some Muslims are violent. I don’t think he or anyone else would deny that. But he is not saying that Jones is responsible, just that this is a descriptive consequence of his actions.
August 30, 2010, 4:54 pmCornellian says:
He should have stayed with comedy like all the other former Pythons.
August 30, 2010, 4:54 pmPerpetua says:
Many Muslims live in countries where they genuinely don’t believe in freedom of religion or freedom of speech and don’t admire those freedoms.
As Rauf explained in a presentation in Malaysia on Sharia Law, Muslims, expect the government to protect religion. This is very different than believing in freedom of speech and freedom of religion. They believe the religion should be protected, free from any assaults on its dignity.
The punishment for damaging a Quran in Pakistan is death.
August 30, 2010, 4:55 pmPorkchop says:
I’m not a Muslim, so let me say it: “Can you imagine what this will do to our image around the world and the additional danger it will add whenever there is an American presence in Iraq or Afghanistan?”
The truth of the answer to that rhetorical question does not depend on the identity of the speaker.
Americans do and say lots of stupid stuff that is protected under the First Amendment. The fact that it is legal to do or say it does not render it less stupid. If I were given the opportunity to address the Dove World Outreach Center congregation, my first words would be, “What the %$#@ is wrong with you people?” I have a First Amendment right to be critical — so does Mr. Hooper.
The fact is that there are a fair number of dumbasses in the United States; not everyone with whom I disagree is one of them, but I like to think that there are few or no dumbasses that I do agree with. Some number of dumbasses that I disagree with apparently belong to the “Dovies.”
The rest of the world (or parts of it) seems to have a problem understanding that dumbassery is protected by the First Amendment. Some assume that a failure to punish protected dumbassery somehow amounts to an endorsement of it. The more ignorant of American mores they are, the more likely they are to be offended when the dumbassery is aimed in their direction. It’s legal, but it’s not helpful. Why are the Dovies pouring gasoline on the fire? Because they are dumbasses and it’s apparently important for them to prove it.
We’ve already had plenty of dumbassery in or around the Islamic part of the world (Abu Ghraib, for example), so it wouldn’t be a bad idea for the Dove World Outreach Center to just shut up and, oh, maybe do some act of charitable outreach to the world.
For example, there are people in extremis in Pakistan who are being fed by Islamist charities. Maybe reaching out to that part of the world with aid would be a more constructive use of their time, as well as a boon to the image of America abroad. God might like it better, too — maybe they should check in with Him from time to time. I’ve been told that He likes and encourages charity and other good deeds.
August 30, 2010, 4:56 pmElliot says:
Perhaps the enemy they are targeting is the cadre of American apologists who insist Islam is a religion of peace and take every opportunity to blame the US for what Islamic Jihadis do? This guy will probably get more worldwide play with his matches than any of the bloggers or TV talking heads. He is delivering a very direct and brutal message, and he’s going over everyone’s head to do it. Look for more of the same.
August 30, 2010, 5:02 pmA.W. says:
What you are talking about is hooper is FREE RIDING on terrorism.
And yeah, its despicable. indeed, it is only a few degrees of separation from what revolution islam did in the latest “mohammed on south park” controversy, and i have felt those animals should have been tried for making a terroristic threat. i can’t believe that they were allowed to walk around as free men after doing that.
As for Hooper, it makes his “of course i am opposed to terror” type denunciations all the more hollow.
I think this minister is being a tool, although possibly a constitutionally protected one. But Hooper comes out looking like the bigger tool. And certainly the muslims objecting to this offense need to explain how they feel about the creators of this ground zero mosque offending 71% of all americans.
August 30, 2010, 5:04 pmPerpetua says:
I have no idea why you say this is objectively wrong. Please explain. I see a very tight link: Al Qaeda believes itself to be espousing Islam and furthering Islam in ways clearly stated in the Islamic holy texts.
I also see a very tight link between the behavior of the American church and America’s foundational texts. In the case of the American church burning Qurans, it is very much an American behavior, premised on the rights of freedom of religion and freedom of speech in our Constitution.
That way I am seeing it, it would not be objectively wrong for people in countries with very different foundational values to be angry that America permits this behavior which to them is a death penalty offense.
It is very scary to realize the clash of foundational values we are confronting. Of course, Rauf and his wife claim that Sharia is compatible with our US Constitution, but situations like this show us that they are in basic, profound conflict.
August 30, 2010, 5:05 pmmute Dem says:
Porkchop, yes, so much American dumbassery. We be the dumbass offenders. And, sure, Islamists are doing “charity” in Pakistan, unlike us dumbass Americans who haven’t sent a dollar to or shed a drop of blood for Pakistan and other Muslim countries.
We’re cheap, unChristian dumbasses, apparently.
August 30, 2010, 5:05 pmCJColucci says:
A few propositions:
1. Americans have a right, subject to neutral enforcement of fire laws, to burn Korans.
2. Burning Korans is a stupid, pointless, classless, needlessly offensive thing to do.
3. Burning Korans plays into the hands of radical jihadis who want to convince their sane co-religionists that the US is against Islam itself, not just against terrorists that happen to be Muslims.
4. Burning Korans increases the likelihood that some radical jihadi will do something awful.
5. People who want to burn Korans ought to think about the likely consequences of what they’re thinking of doing.
6. People who think about the likely consequences of burning Korans will come to the conclusion that it is a bad idea.
Who disagrees with what?
August 30, 2010, 5:08 pmmute Dem says:
I do.
August 30, 2010, 5:09 pmPedro says:
I also find that to be offensive reasoning. If you knew I had a record of violence, would you be partially responsible for my doing something really bad because you said what you did?
August 30, 2010, 5:10 pmscientist says:
I propose a controlled experiment in which we burn Bibles and say “Kill the Infidels” and “Death to Jews” in sermons to see what happens.
August 30, 2010, 5:15 pmlay person says:
Nah, that’s been done already, “scientist.” Nothing much happened.
August 30, 2010, 5:16 pmTed says:
Is the likelihood of retaliation involved in the calculation of determining what is “right?” That is, if an evil tyrant threatens to kill half the children in his country (and has the capability to do it) if anyone exposes his corruption, is exposing the corruption the “right” thing to do?
August 30, 2010, 5:17 pmPorkchop says:
Which part?
August 30, 2010, 5:20 pmGullibleFool says:
Well, the second part of that experiment was performed for the current president, for about 20 years…..
August 30, 2010, 5:20 pmA.W. says:
CJ
> Burning Korans increases the likelihood that some radical jihadi will do something awful.
considering what the terrorists will do in response to your exercise of your god given rights is servile and unsuited of a free man. it also encourages the terrorists to act like whack jobs because it gets results.
Consider the message sent when comedy central censored mohammed out of every episode of south park, but were willing to show Buddha snorting coke, and jesus watching internet porn. Clearly if Christians want to get respect, they have to start killing some blasphemers, right?
At the very least, you should be indifferent to what the killers will do in response to your expression. but if anything, we should all burn korans, if the argument is the terrorists will kill someone over it.
August 30, 2010, 5:22 pmPorkchop says:
So — who is getting good press in Pakistan (our sometime ally in the war on terror)? Us or the Islamists? So, if say, you wanted to recruit a young Pakistani to fight on your side, would you maybe do a little charitable work to show him that you are a good guy? Or would you burn a few Korans so as to teach those Muslims a lesson?
Hint — this is a war for hearts and minds. Fewer recruits for the Islamists means fewer suicide bombers and Taliban shooting at our soldiers. If it’s not a war for hearts and minds, then we should just pull out the nukes right now and get it over with, because a war of attrition is not a good idea.
August 30, 2010, 5:26 pmG.I. Josephine says:
Wow. On our knees with this kind of reasoning. We’d be the inhumane ones, right?
The answer is: What are Black Ops during a Repub admin and aspirin factory missile strikes during a Democratic one, Alex?
August 30, 2010, 5:28 pmA.W. says:
i will add that i won’t go burning a koran just to spike Hooper, but he really wants to push the matter, to say that not because it is right, or courteous, but you shouldn’t burn the koran because other people will kill you, that becomes an argument to be defiant, to burn the koran, if only to call their bluff.
I do not say that lightly and theoretically. i have put my money where my mouth is, so to speak: http://everyonedrawmohammed.blogspot.com/2010/05/welcome-to-new-visitorswe-are-calling.html
I ran one of the largest sites for the everyone draw mohammed movement. my site is banned in pakistan and if i went there, i stand a real chance of being killed–not just by terrorists, but by the government. And yeah, i admit to being proud of those facts.
I don’t think this one idiot, Hooper justifies that kind of reaction. But he and everyone else who urges people to be silent are at best suggesting servile behavior, and at worst, have enlisted our enemies to your cause.
August 30, 2010, 5:33 pmmute Dem says:
Porkchop, are you for real? You really think we are not spending craploads of money and blood in Pakistan and on behalf of other Muslims? We, to include our allies and NGOs? To include humanitarian workers who get brutally executed? And we still only get two-faced “cooperation” and no respect.
August 30, 2010, 5:35 pmgrog says:
Let me just throw out that
is, I think, the best straight line I’ve seen in at least a week. Funny stuff.
August 30, 2010, 5:39 pmrilkefan says:
I rather thought we were spending blood and money there on our own behalf (often in counterproductive ways). But the obvious reference was to the cataclysmic flooding in Pakistan and the widely-reported donor fatigue it has been met with. Please see e.g. here.
August 30, 2010, 5:42 pmOwen H. says:
If you keep telling the world that all of Islam is your enemy, it makes it easier for terrorists to recruit. You are demonstrating that they are right about us.
August 30, 2010, 5:43 pmPerpetua says:
Muslims think it is wrong that the particular dumbassery of defaming Islam is legal. The Organization of Islamic Countries has worked to get the UN to pass defamation of religion resolutions that would prohibit expression that would, “fuel discrimination, extremism and misperception leading to polarization and fragmentation with dangerous unintended and unforeseen consequences.”
I am not defending the Muslim/OIC paradigm, just pointing out that they really do have a different paradigm.
August 30, 2010, 5:49 pmD.T. says:
In such cases, I am often reminded of Dickenson’s observation—I am of their opinion, who think it almost as infamous to disgrace a good cause by illiberal language, as to betray it by unmanly timidity. Complaints may be made with dignity, insults retorted with decency; and violated rights vindicated without violence of words.
Although Dove World is not betraying their cause by unmanly timidity, I do think their actions disgrace it.
I would also caution everyone with an uninformed opinion to study history a little closer.
D.T.
August 30, 2010, 5:50 pmmute Dem says:
Sorry if our great expenditures are not sufficiently altruistic, rilkefan, but they certainly have benefited Muslims, both moderate and radical alike (unfortunately as to the latter, but ‘deals with the devil you know’ and corrupt funneling of monies earmarked for better purposes happen.)
August 30, 2010, 5:50 pmChris Travers says:
But when someone at a KKK rally (maybe where a cross was burned) said “Kill the niggers… We intend to do our part” (yes, that’s in the court opinion, footnote one), we got a nice precedent strongly protecting freedom of speech in this country (Brandenburg v. Ohio).
August 30, 2010, 5:51 pmChris Travers says:
Shall we oppose it with manly firmness?
August 30, 2010, 5:52 pmlay person says:
Your point, Chris Travers?
August 30, 2010, 5:53 pmPorkchop says:
Exactly.
August 30, 2010, 5:56 pmmoot Dem says:
Oh my god. We’re not doing enough for the Pakis.
August 30, 2010, 5:58 pmPorkchop says:
I understand that. I didn’t say that we should prevent the Dovies from doing whatever they are legally able to do. But they are still dumbasses,and they are not making the world safer for democracy, motherhood, apple pie, or the American way of life.
August 30, 2010, 6:00 pmPorkchop says:
People tend to be more fond of the folks who give them food and shelter when they need it. So, if the Islamist charities get all the credit, who are these people going to support when the recruiters come around?
August 30, 2010, 6:08 pmPorkchop says:
So, it’s servile not to be a dumbass, and you should just because you can?
August 30, 2010, 6:14 pm[muffled] says:
Porkchop says: “I didn’t say that we should prevent the Dovies from doing whatever they are legally able to do. But they are still dumbasses,and they are not making the world safer for democracy, motherhood, apple pie, or the American way of life.”
Yes, stifle yourself, America, and make the world safer for democratic governance, respect for women, bacon, and freedoms of speech, religion and delectables in the Muslim world.
August 30, 2010, 6:14 pmSarcastro says:
It’s amazing how ungrateful folks are for what we give them. They might even get offended if we call them racial slurs!
[Though I must say that I am not sure if 30 guys burning Korans will make Jihadis more Jihadesque. And even if it does, whether we should make any policy decision based on the thuggery of the other side.
There are lots of reasons holding a Koran burning is dumb and unchristain. In my opinion, the fact that it might make crazy rageaholics rage extra is not one of them.]
August 30, 2010, 6:15 pmPorkchop says:
Remind me, if you would be so kind, just exactly what does holding a Koran-burning festival accomplish and for whom?
August 30, 2010, 6:18 pmJoeSixpack says:
Can you imagine what building a mosque two blocks from ground zero will do to the image of Muslims around the United States? And the additional danger it will add whenever a Muslim taxi driver picks up a non-Muslim passenger?
August 30, 2010, 6:19 pmPorkchop says:
No, please explain.
August 30, 2010, 6:21 pmisland says:
Al Qaeda itself equates themselves with Islam.
What gives your the right to deny their claim?
August 30, 2010, 6:24 pmmoot Dem says:
People tend to be more fond of the folks who give them food and shelter when they need it. So, if the Islamist charities get all the credit, who are these people going to support when the recruiters come around?
Porkchop, you really believe we haven’t done enough for Pakistan? What would be enough to buy off the corrupt officials and establishment radical military and madrasses?
All the money in the world would only buy more contempt. We’ve been giving it a good, thoroughly expensive try, and yet America is never doing enough or always doing too much of the wrong thing.
Never and always. It’s a doctrinaire litany of the Left and Right and, as such, protected speech and all that, so you’re safe in saying what you say, unless you mayhaps offend a murdering Mississippi Christianist whom you didn’t sufficiently help during Katrina.
August 30, 2010, 6:24 pmSouth Park uncensored says:
“Remind me, if you would be so kind, just exactly what does holding a Koran-burning festival accomplish and for whom?” (Porkchop)
Who gives a damn?
August 30, 2010, 6:28 pmSarcastro says:
I equate myself with island. He is one of my more subtle alts. What gives you the right to deny my claim?
August 30, 2010, 6:33 pmJK says:
This seems like an iteration of the old question of whether you are “blaming the victim” if you say it’s a bad idea for a woman to take a walk through [bad part of city] alone at night and scantily clad.
Hooper is proposing that there is, in fact, a connection between certain actions and certain events. While it’s true that in a sense this does necessarily imply that that he thinks the actor would be partly “responsible” for resulting events, it doesn’t necessarily imply any level of justification or blameworthiness.
August 30, 2010, 6:46 pmDebrah says:
My senses tell me that your view from the prism of this steaming cauldron has great merit.
Let me preface by saying (as one will always be obliged to do for the PC circuit) that most Americans surely know that we are at war with radical Islam, not the entire Muslim world.
In order to avoid attacks and ridicule in an ever-obsessed and emollient-ridden culture, one is led in a choreographed tap dance around even openly acknowledging anything but a “peaceful” Muslim world.
But the “peaceful” feel little obligation to distinguish themselves.
Why?
Fear of retribution from radical Islam?
Lack of desire to even remotely align with non-Muslims on any level or documented way?
Curiously, the Obama administration has removed from its official vocabulary words like “Islamist”, “jihadist”, and “Islamic terrorism”.
There wasn’t a single mention of Nidal Hasan’s Islamism in the Pentagon’s lengthy review of the Ft. Hood shooting.
The one common denominator linking all the great terror attacks of this century has been Islamist fundamentalism.
Some reactions to Eugene’s post are reminiscent of Hasan’s excuses.
Apologists conjured up the loony theory of his “secondary post-traumatic stress disorder”.
That “stress” compelled him to gun down twelve American soldiers while shouting “Allahu Akbar.”
Ah, the morphological gyrations of human nature when inside the suppurating throes of this particular brand of Allah-worship.
August 30, 2010, 6:46 pmfred says:
Morphological gyrations– that’s belly dancing and navel gazing, right?
August 30, 2010, 6:51 pmPorkchop says:
Well, then, let me repeat the last paragraph of my earlier post (the part you did not quote earlier):
Perhaps greater minds than mine can come up with additional ways to deal with this situation, but I see three (not entirely mutual exclusive)scenarios:
(1) We treat the “war on terror” as a war for hearts and minds, and try to coordinate carrots and sticks (and yes, try not to unnecessarily piss people off);
(2) We say to hell with hearts and minds and engage in a war of attrition in which we attempt to overcome the assymetry in recruitable manpower with technology (with all of the attendant economic costs); or
(3) We just bring out the nukes and get it over with.
Got any better ideas? You may have heard that our economy is not in great shape and our military is getting ragged from years of deployments. It’s also a lot smaller than it was when I served 35 years ago. Should we bring back the draft to buck up the numbers? That brings its own set of problems.
You comment: “We’ve been giving it a good, thoroughly expensive try, and yet America is never doing enough or always doing too much of the wrong thing.”
Expensive, yes. From a strategic or grand strategic point of view, not such a good try. A great deal of what has been done, particularly in the early part of the Iraqi invasion and occupation, was inept. It has amazed me that so many of the lessons of the 1950′s and 1960′s (and the small wars of the 1900′s through the 1930′s) were so thoroughly forgotten by the military establishment. General Petraeus is to be commended for remembering and implementing them, but why didn’t his predecessors even think about the consequences of their tactics? Did none of them even think to read, say, The Small Wars Manual at some point in their careers? They were ready to fight the last war (as often happens), not the one that they needed to fight.
August 30, 2010, 6:53 pmDebrah says:
Ha!
All in context, you know.
August 30, 2010, 6:58 pmrilkefan says:
Too little dry, scaly skin is bad for a culture?
August 30, 2010, 6:58 pmPedro says:
OK, JK, let’s make a more apt comparison. A scantily clad woman here causes a man to rape another women there. Is the first woman partially responsible?
What does this kind of responsibility apportionatement get us but inferred, projected blame onto victims by “incited” perps and their apologists, as well as our individual liberties circumscribed for the common good?
August 30, 2010, 6:59 pmD.R.M. says:
It demonstrates that the people of the United States will not be deterred by the threat of terrorism from exercising their fundamental rights. In fact, its ability to demonstrate that is dependent on precisely two variables; the degree to which the act has no other value, and the degree to which the act is likely to provoke a violent counter-reaction. The more pointlessly provocative the action is objectively, the more strongly it sends the message that terroristic threats will not secure compliance.
August 30, 2010, 7:00 pmSo Ibrahim Hooper is Islamophobic, I guess. — Laura Curtis says:
[...] But the response from unindicted terror funding co-conspirator CAIR was amusing. (via Volokh) “Can you imagine what this will do to our image around the world?” said Ibrahim Hooper, a [...]
August 30, 2010, 7:01 pmChris Travers says:
“Caused” as in conniving? The way you phrased your question presupposes the answer.
If your wife starts destroying your family heirlooms until you hit her does that make her partly to blame for the assault?
I think the reason we don’t blame the woman is that she isn’t there is a difference between presenting an opportunity for a crime and causing it to occur.
August 30, 2010, 7:01 pmMark Field says:
I didn’t mean my comment to set off a philosophical debate on consequentialist ethics. I was just making a common sense point. Personally, I think we should burn all the holy books and let God sort them out.
It seems to me that those who criticize the hypothetical terrorist reaction need to deal with the issue of fighting words. Do you believe in those or not? If not, then your criticism is logically consistent. If you do, though, then you need to come up with an argument which justifies your distinctions.
August 30, 2010, 7:05 pmSarcastro says:
Those scare quotes around peaceful are awesome.
August 30, 2010, 7:08 pmADF Alliance Alert » American Islamists rely on threat of Islamic violence to make their case says:
[...] Volokh writing at The Volokh Conspiracy: “[T]he response from Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR . . . ‘Can you imagine what this will do [...]
August 30, 2010, 7:13 pmDebrah says:
Well……..yes.
I think it’s the sensual way I touch the keys.
August 30, 2010, 7:14 pmA.W. says:
Porky
> So, it’s servile not to be a dumbass, and you should just because you can?
And of course you say this, too:
> “Can you imagine what this will do to our image around the world and the additional danger it will add whenever there is an American presence in Iraq or Afghanistan?”
Ah, so the usual “why they hate us” refrain, where you advocate that we should do nothing that pisses our enemies off.
So let’s review what that would take:
1) Stop fighting the war on terror. Our enemies don’t like it when you fight back.
2) let them murder every man, woman and child in Israel.
3) forcibly convert everyone to Islam.
4) repeal the first amendment, and 19th. Add a new amendment that declares that now law not inconsistent with the Koran shall be valid.
5) kill every gay person you can get you hands on (and ban gay marriage, but that is sort of implied).
6) Force women to at least wear veil, if not requiring the full burqa.
7) give back all lands once owned Islam, including Spain, or at least do nothing as they take them back.
Then and only then can we hope that our new terrorist masters won’t kill us anymore. And unless you are willing to do all that, don’t talk to me about appeasement.
(And hint, if you were willing to do all that, still don’t talk to me. I am not willing to do any of them.)
I was crystal clear. If you don’t want to do it because you are just not interested in being rude, that is fine. But if you are advocating it because you are scared, grow a pair and if anything you should do it to show them you are not intimiated.
Theo Van Gogh would thank you.
August 30, 2010, 7:15 pmChris Travers says:
I suppose my religion is exempt since we don’t have holy books per se… :-)
August 30, 2010, 7:27 pmmattski says:
You and Sarah P. could go places.
Resorting to insults demonstrates courage, lack of fear?? Not in the slightest, if you ask me. It shows fear. On the contrary, maintaining your dignity, treating an adversary with respect shows courage.
Certainly, Christ thought so. I’m not a Christian, but I think turning the other cheek is something cowards find almost impossible to do.
August 30, 2010, 7:35 pmLaura Victoria says:
If CAIR is supposedly a moderate Muslim viewpoint, even according to Euguene, we are all in trouble.
August 30, 2010, 7:44 pmJohn Burgess says:
The US does plenty that pisses off other people. Much of that is not only legitimate within the power of the state, but also the right thing to be doing. That does not mean that the US should do legal-but-dumb things, as matters of policy.
If Jones had a point to make other than that he hates Muslims and is happy to use his constitutional protections to piss them off, then perhaps his efforts might be worth supporting. Burning Qurans just because he can burn them strikes me as just a bit infantile. One can, of course, draw lessons about the glories of free speech from his actions, but that lesson is going to be lost in the presentation. Here, the medium distracts from the message.
He knows that it will annoy Muslims; that’s his point. While he has every right to do so, just why should we applaud his doing so? He will certainly achieve his end, if he manages to burn Qurans. But who profits? It does ratchet-up, for no apparent reason, animosity toward the US. Is that his goal? To make more Muslims dislike the US? And that serves just what point?
August 30, 2010, 8:00 pmGaryP says:
SARCASM ON
Maybe Christians should get their game on and start threatening to kill (or actually killing) anyone that insults their religion. (i.e. taking pictures of crosses in urine, refusing Christians the right to build churches in Muslim countries, calls them racists, or bit…, etc., etc., etc.)
Then all the leftists would suddenly develop great respect for Christianity and begin to understand that Christianity is a “religion of peace,” insist that public money be used to construct churches everywhere, and suddenly decide that Christians are just misunderstood and not responsible for their actions.
SARCASM OFF
Nah, don’t think so…
August 30, 2010, 8:01 pmScott says:
Just for clarification, you’re using “this century” in the strict sense of “beginning with 1/1/2001,” correct? Because if you actually meant “in the last hundred years,” there’s this story I should tell you about Oklahoma City….
August 30, 2010, 8:16 pmDebrah says:
¡ Es correcto !
August 30, 2010, 8:26 pmElliot says:
I’m not sure any incremental actions we take will increase attacks. We should remember that on the of the primary gripes against the US is the US Constitution, judicial precedent, and cultural values that strongly ensure freedom of religion and speech. That is anathema to Islamists, and their Holy Jihad is designed to prevent that virus from spreading to other nations and cultures.
They have watched the idea spread in the West, and are horrified when they see signs it is spreading to non-Western nations. That idea is the worst nightmare for anyone who wants to see Islamic rule. They actually see advocacy for such values as a direct and unprovoked attack against Islam.
August 30, 2010, 8:36 pmOwen H. says:
Fred Phelps declares that he has the right path for Christianity. What gives your right to deny his claim? How about Eric Rudolph? Army of God?
August 30, 2010, 8:41 pmOwen H. says:
It isn’t a matter of giving some terrorist an excuse. They’ll find one, just as surely as it doesn’t matter whether or not the community center in NYC gets built, they’ll claim what they want either way.
No, the issue is if we keeping telling the Muslims of the world that America thinks they are already all our enemy, then eventually they might see no other option than to join our real enemies, out of fear. We’ve demonstrated pretty well what we do to people we say are our enemies recently.
August 30, 2010, 8:45 pmA.W. says:
Matt
> Resorting to insults demonstrates courage, lack of fear??
There you went and killed an innocent straw man. What did he ever do to you?
Once again, if you don’t insult because you just don’t like to be rude, good for you.
If you don’t insult because you are scared of being killed, you are a coward.
> It shows fear.
No one does orwell like liberals. Slavery is freedom. War is peace. Refusing to insult a man because you are afraid he will kill you with a rusty scimitar is courage!
August 30, 2010, 8:47 pmA.W. says:
Btw, I have looked into the rituals of the florida gators. It sounds very likely that they have been running bonfires in gainsville for sports related purposes. i am frankly surprised they want more heat in florida, but then Texas A&M had that famous bonfire, too. Personally having lived in the Dallas area, i tend to think a giant ice party makes more sense, but i guess that is just me.
Joking aside I would love to hear them explain why one was allowed and the other wasn’t. i mean its not clear that the gator one got a permit, but there appears to be some looking the other way. The only question is whether it was technically in the same jurisdiction. i think if the pastor sued, they could have a real problem. but frankly he is probably loving the controversy.
And Hooper should be run out of polite company for free riding on terrorism.
August 30, 2010, 8:53 pmJK says:
You’re just playing games with the ambiguity of the word “responsible.” Do you mean “factual cause of” or “morally accountable for”? I don’t see anything in Hooper’s statement that requires the conclusion that he thinks Jones is morally accountable for attacks on US soldiers even if they are, in fact, caused by Jones’ actions or statements.
If Hooper thinks Jones is morally accountable for potential attacks, then that is certainly outrageous, but one ought to be able to make a factual prediction without implying any moral accountability whatsoever. I don’t see how EV’s analysis leaves any room for factual predictions devoid of moral blame. Maybe he thinks there’s an implied threat, as he compares it to statements that clearly are implied threats, but it seems crazy to think Hooper has the sort of influence over Taliban in Afghanistan that a union boss has over members of his union.
August 30, 2010, 8:55 pmwhit says:
the problem is using the word “causes”. i realize this is the english language, not fortran, so there is a certain subjectivity, but the scantily clad woman does not CAUSE this
better to say she “inspired” it, or something like that.
scantily clad women don’t cause rape. people who leave a car with the keys in the ignition don’t cause auto theft (and that includes police bait cars). people who burn korans don’t cause islamist violence.
the very word “causes” begs the question
August 30, 2010, 9:02 pmPerpetua says:
Well, if a large media corporation ran a tv comedy show that made fun of Mohammed, perhaps even portraying him in cartoon form, and the headquarters of the media corp was later bombed by Islamic fundamentalists in protest, would the relatives of the deceased employees have a case against the media corp for running the show?
August 30, 2010, 9:10 pmmattski says:
Why would you insult “the man with the rusty scimitar”? What purpose are you serving? If the “tmwtrs” is a criminal then why don’t we put him in jail? What does an insult have to do with it?
What is the purpose of an insult? To show disrespect. Why show disrespect? Because we feel exposed to a threat and we think/hope/pray that hurling abuse will cause the threat to go away, step back, recede. Because a threat is a fearful thing.
Is hurling insults effective? Have you learned nothing from the VC comment threads? Or maybe you like threads that run down into foodfights?!
We’re all human, we all have our outbursts. Some more than others, admittedly. It doesn’t do a heck of a lot of good. Though I guess a certain level of maturity is required to grasp that.
August 30, 2010, 9:10 pmDebrah says:
The word “causes” emasculates every semblance of sanity.
One should be questioning such a mindset, a mentality, a culture that fully expects the outside world to look over and make excuses for uncivilized behavior.
But alas, insinuations that barbarism be relaxed are thought to be rude.
())))))))) 7th century carpet rides conquering ((((((((()
August 30, 2010, 9:30 pmScott says:
OK. In that case, you’re deliberately exaggerating the historical scope of radical Islamic terrorism by using “century” to refer to a ten-year period, however technically correct.
And “suppurating throes”? Debrah, you’re past purple prose and hovering somewhere between mauve and ultraviolet. Is this some bizarre educational effort based on the earlier thread regarding the scarce usage of “meretricious”?
August 30, 2010, 9:33 pmCarl N. Brown says:
The problem with this discussion is that it is so US-centric, as the British editors complain about the English language Wikipedia.
Americans are not first nor better than the Danes in offending the sensibilities of Moslems: talking about burning Korans in protest can’t top drawing cartoons of Mohammed, can it?
There should be due respect for the opinions of others, and restraint in response to thoughtless insults. The world needs to worry about its image.
August 30, 2010, 9:36 pmOwen H. says:
If you tell someone over and over, every day, that you hate them, how long before they hate you too?
August 30, 2010, 9:36 pmDebrah says:
Ah, but it’s so cleanly accurate.
This century.
But don’t despair.
I’m sure “Allah” has lots more displays inside the sand-scratching kit.
Why, no.
But mere suggestion feeds my impulses.
August 30, 2010, 9:51 pmPorkchop says:
Let’s look at this another way. At the moment, anyway, the likelihood of any random U.S. citizen being harmed in the United States by an act of terrorism is miniscule. The risk to a Dove World Outreach Center congregant from burning any number of Korans is virtually nonexistent. It is not an exercise in courage for them to burn Korans, because the risk, if any, falls elsewhere.
So, let’s assume that they go ahead and make a big bonfire, making international news — and it certainly will make international news. I suspect that somewhere out there are some number of young Muslim men who will see that news. Will that act of disrespect to their religion be the tipping point that drives them into the arms of al Qaida? Maybe, maybe not.
But while we are all exercising our constitutional right to be dumbasses, there’s a soldier or two who is looking around at those same young Muslim men and wondering whether one of them has made the decision to join al Qaida. He’s the one who bears the risk of the Dovies’ actions.
The military is sensitive enough to the issue to have issued instructions at Guantanamo to treat the Koran respectfully in order to avoid antagonizing the international Muslim community. Remember, it’s not just the Taliban’s Koran — we have Muslim allies. Turkey is a NATO member; Saudi Arabia is an ally; we have bases in Uzbekistan; Morocco has provided assistance; the Afghan government is (theoretically) part of the good guys. The Army apologized in Iraq because some soldier used the Koran for target practice — the Army knows it’s important not to encourage Iraqis to shoot at our soldiers. It doesn’t matter if any soldier likes or dislikes Muslims — it’s field-expedient to avoid giving people excuses to shoot at you.
I realize that there are those who think that we are under siege because we were attacked 9 years ago. My secretary grew up in England — her parents went through the Blitz; my father-in-law spent his teenage years living under Japanese rule and then had to flee the North Korean army when it invaded the South; my father survived the Japanese bombing at Dutch Harbor, Alaska, and like millions of his generation served in WWII. You can ask those people what real war is like. For those of us not actively serving in the military or supporting them, this is an easy-chair war.
Burning a Koran in front of your church is not an act of political or moral courage unless there’s a Taliban bunker across the street. It probably will send a message, but it may not be the message they think.
You state: “The more pointlessly provocative the action is objectively, the more strongly it sends the message that terroristic threats will not secure compliance.” Burning a Koran in a nice safe place or invading Afghanistan — which one sends the stronger message? “Look at me, I’m a brave defiant American, because I burned a Koran thousands of miles away from a combat zone!”
Okay, there’s a right to do it. There may be consequences . . . to someone else.
It’s childish dumbassery; in fact, I’m going to call it cowardly — making a big display of defiance from a place of safety and then letting someone else deal with the potential consequences.
August 30, 2010, 10:14 pmArthur Kirkland says:
I believe most Americans have always overstated the degree to which religion exposed soldiers to harm in Afghanistan and Iraq. I believe that a number of other factors — attacking without justification, creating natural anti-invader sentiment; engaging in torture and other mistreatment, inciting understandable animus; killing and maiming countless thousands of innocents, turning survivors into blood enemies; siding with and enabling corrupt and brutal forces, alienating victims — have been understated, for reasons ranging from “not as good an ideological story line” to many Americans’ natural tendency to avert the eyes from unattractive American conduct.
We have done some dumb things with respect to religion, from the “Jesus warrior” dopes in the Air Force to disrespect of Muslims and “ragheads” in general, but I think the nonreligious factors have probably been more important in precipitating anti-American sentiment.
I also doubt the precipitate to the September 11 attack was largely religious. It seems to have more importantly involved our disgraceful alliance with the Saudis, our stationing of soldiers on the Arabian peninsula, and our choice of sides to arm or oppose in various disputes.
August 30, 2010, 10:36 pmSolon says:
I suspect that the kind of responsibility you are talking about is slightly different from that referenced by EV and (I think) implied by Hooper. That is, from a viewpoint of strict causality, it may play a role; the issue EV seems to be addressing, however, is that of moral responsibility. You talk of drunk drivers and choosing to walk on the road – the choice to walk has a clear causal relationship to being hit, but you can not be held morally responsible (blamed) for being hit. In the same way, Hooper’s comments seem to imply, not overtly, but tacitly, that the koran-burning can be blamed for an increase in violence against westerners in the middle-eastern conflicts, despite what seems to me a clear novus actus interveniens in the choice of the extremists to engage in the increased violence. The fact that the ultimate act of violence is a choice vitiates any blame I think could otherwise be ascribed to the koran-burning exercise. Remember, violent extremists are, though evidence be to the contrary, rational independent actors just as responsible for their actions as southern preachers, not automatons programmed to react to western insult.
August 30, 2010, 10:37 pmRicardo says:
I agree that as a factual matter, Hooper is right. At the same time, since he imagines himself to be some kind of spokesman for moderate Islam, he didn’t necessarily hit on the right talking points on this one. As far as I can tell, Hooper supports European-style hate crime legislation in the U.S.
As for fighting words, I thought the distinction was that fighting words had to be personally abusive and delivered to a person’s face in a way as to result in imminent violence. I have to hammer on the “Satanic Verses” analogy again: when that book was published, there was a wave of bombings, attempted bombings and bomb threats against bookstores around the world. Here is Wikipedia on what happened:
So back in 1989, openly selling the novel was in practice associated with the risk of violence and terrorism. It was also a legal right and the right thing to do.
August 30, 2010, 10:38 pmSolon says:
And so are those who resort to ad hominem arguments to make their point…
August 30, 2010, 10:42 pmMark Field says:
Agreed.
Yes. My point, which I probably wasn’t clear about, was that those criticizing the use of violence in response to speech need to either (a) admit that our law sanctions that also*; or (b) deny that it should do so. Otherwise we’re just quibbling about the exact parameters of the exception. Personally, I favor (b).
*Whether it still does is, I guess, an open question. Nevertheless, Chaplinsky was decided 9-0 and has never been overruled.
August 30, 2010, 11:29 pmDrogba says:
Owen H: “It isn’t a matter of giving some terrorist an excuse. They’ll find one”
You are very right. The Koran is full of “excuses” to slay some heathen or another; a literalist/fundamentalist will have no trouble finding an excuse.
There’s nothing wrong with disrespecting a Koran. I’ve done it – put it on a low shelf, put it on the ground, handle it with unwashed hands, sleep with my feet facing it. But that’s mostly out of convenience or negligence, and in private. To burn a Koran publicly is protected by the American constitution, but it is not nice and it’s disrespectful to others. I would not want my children or friends to participate in anything like that.
“And he also seems to be trying to blame the people who are exercising their rights for the violence that would supposedly ensue.”
He was wrong that American military interests would suffer from the Koran burning. But he wasn’t wrong that words (exercising free speech rights) can have physical consequences. Remember in Die Hard With a Vengeance when Bruce Willis walks around Harlem with a “I Hate Niggers” sign? Clearly violence would ensue, and of course the violent people would be to blame for committing violent acts. People are responsible for their own actions of course, but people who instigate or promote violent actions with their words can also be to blame.
August 30, 2010, 11:58 pmwhit says:
islam is unique in that it is the only religion (or at least major religion) that routinely and predictably uses violence (and not minor violence either) and threats of same when anybody DARES insult it, or mohamed.
thus, islam deserves special treatment and i can’t get too upset about anybody who goes out of the way to fight back against the heckler’s veto. i feel badly for the vast majority of muslims who are offended (and are not violent), but this is america.
as noted before, south park can picture buddha snorting coke for pete’ sake, and make fun of jesus incessantly and NOTHING happens. when anybody tries to do something remotely similar to mohamed/islam – well, we know what happens. just talk to rushdie about it.
it’s simply not acceptable and peaceful muslims should be the most critical of the violent ones, and accept some offense to their religion – because the violent ones are the ones that brought it on
August 31, 2010, 12:16 amEd Darrell says:
I’ll wager Jones doesn’t read Arabic, and won’t know whether he’s burning Bibles in Arabic.
I’ll wager it wouldn’t slow him if he knew.
August 31, 2010, 12:19 amwhit says:
i’d wager a fair %age of those protesting him don’t read arabic either.
point being what exactly?
August 31, 2010, 12:22 amrilkefan says:
I think I pretty clearly alluded to the term’s ambiguity from my first comment in the thread – in fact it’s the point of my comments above. Hence “fast and loose”.
Are you sure you want to defend this case, knowing I may be able to present in court the death video from the suicide bomber saying, “This act of violence is in revenge for the Koran-burning in the US”? But in any case, I think (though IANAL by any stretch) tort law is a poor substitute for philosophy here, or at best a fully debatable position.
Maybe you’re right, maybe you’re wrong. I suspect a cost-benefit analysis of the likelihoods given the available information would suggest not tossing the coin.
For what it’s worth I think it’s pretty easy to show mathematically that reason (a particular algorithmic approach to a minimization problem on an unknown landscape) isn’t privileged, but saying act A causes extremist E to irrationally want to do something is much too simplistic – maybe A gives E cover (among a more moderate group for example) for a desired action. Or maybe E has genuine reason to believe that A is good evidence.
August 31, 2010, 12:24 amDrogba says:
“islam is unique in that it is the only religion (or at least major religion) that routinely and predictably uses violent”
Whit,
You are confusing Islam with Muslims. They are two very different things.
Muslims drool, piss, shit, fornicate, and die. They speak, walk, work, go fishing (sometimes), and give to charity. They also tell the truth, lie, become demented, gives blowjobs and get heart disease (not always in that exact order).
Islam doesn’t do any of these things.
And no, Muslims are not the only people who routinely and predictably use violence. If we have learned anything in the last 10 years, it’s that violence by Muslims is anything but predictable. e.g. those 7 American soldiers who died in Afghanistan this weekend certainly didn’t predict those bombings. No one could predict that.
August 31, 2010, 12:39 amKirk Parker says:
mattski,
I’ll take you at your word, in your 7:35 pm comment, that you aren’t a Christian. However, your entire comment is completely from a western, Christian point of view. The people that Hooper is warning us about most certainly have a different approach.
Owen H., you’re directing your warning to the Islamists, right?
August 31, 2010, 12:52 amwhit says:
you are correct. muslims, not islam
but i AM correct, that it of the major religions, it is exclusively muslims that routinely use violence when their religion is insulted
that’s simply a fact. and it’s unacceptable
August 31, 2010, 12:56 amrilkefan says:
This is a silly claim that shows a confusion of correlation and causation and a lack of interest in finding the underlying reasons for violence. Are there huge swathes of peaceful Islam? Of course. Are there significant numbers of violent extremist Hindus? Buddhists? Christians? Jews? Of course.
Maybe you can make a case for Islam being somewhat more prone to misuse by fanatics than religion R (though you’ll have a ton of European history to argue away) but then the argument will have lost a lot of its savor.
August 31, 2010, 1:19 amDrogba says:
“it is exclusively muslims that routinely use violence when their religion is insulted
”
Violence is a very complicated phenomenon. It’s foolish to ignore political reasons and to try to explain it only using religious reasons.
Besides, it is not a fact. It is not clear if by “exclusive” you mean only some Muslims or most Muslims or all Muslims. Tell me, how many Muslims routinely use violence if Islam is insulted? What percentage of Muslims? Even after the Danish cartoon incident, there were no incidents of response or rioting in 43 different countries with majority Muslims populations. There were violent incidences in a small number
of majority-Muslim countries. So why the difference, when Islam is constant?! There are political explanations.
Your “exclusive” argument is not that convincing. There are countless examples of Hindus committing violence after (not necessarily “because of”) a perceived slight to the religion.
August 31, 2010, 1:23 amReaderY says:
Idiots. Complete idiots. We can’t pretend we live in a bubble anymore, and idiocy can have terrible consequences. And yet they have a right to do it.
August 31, 2010, 1:34 amleo marvin says:
Whatever the point was, it would be pretty funny if Jones found out mid-bonfire he was burning a bunch of Bibles. (And yes, it would be just as funny if some radical imam inadvertently burned a bunch of Qurans.)
August 31, 2010, 1:42 amJohn T. Bennett says:
I am a law student, on haitus as an Army officer in Afghanistan. Every day, moderate Muslims here refrain from shooting me. I’d like to keep it that way.
As far as the justification/causation facet, the bottom line is that CAIR could be engaged in moral and philosophical skullduggery yet also be correct about the ultimate issue.
Burning Korans is needless provocation. I say this as one who agrees with Wilders, Ali, and Condell.
Just because you can do something does not mean you ought to do it- I seem to remember hearing that a bit recently. Contrary to what some have said, this is not about being supine in the face of extremism. Showing discretion rather than provocation furthers the goal of moderation. Some provocative things we need to do- like fight these two wars and reenact national origin quotas in immigration. Some provocative things we don’t need to do at all.
I despise the fatuous cuasal reasoning that says our policies should be limited or altered based on the views of the Arab street. But burning the Koran is not a policy. We are free to do it, but we should not. Like being verbally abusive to children, or having abortions, burning a Koran is a freedom we should be loathe to exercise. A just and wise people would find alternatives.
To a certain extent, we have to accept that our policies will upset a certain number of people.
Almost everything we do in the west could be taken as an incitement to violence. Certainly its true that resistance will follow our involvement in the “Muslim world” (a phrase whose existence points to the pathology of Muslim supremacy, and our aquiescence). Resistance and bitterness must be considered a cost. The question is, when should we exercise discretion and alter our behavior, and when should we not.
People who are upset about our support for Israel, our involvement in Iraq, etc.- we should not avoid that because our policy imperatives outweigh the costs.
People who are upset about the burning of Korans- we should avoid that because it is pure insult and idiocy.
If we have the good judgment to reason through the placement of a mosque at ground zero, we should have the good judgment to reason through the burning of Korans.
August 31, 2010, 2:33 amwhit says:
this is a fact, not some sort of ideological wank
do you dispute that : that it of the major religions, it is exclusively muslims that routinely use violence when their religion is insulted
if you dispute that, give me some examples of radical buddhists, christians, jews, or whatever religious adherents you have found that routinely use violence when their religion is insulted.
there is a reason why there IS a piss christ, and not a piss koran
because the artist knew damn well that the former would quite likely get him killed, and the latter wouldn’t
the trail of bodies and fatwas doesn’t lie
my statement is either true or it isn’t. if it is not true, you should have no problem presenting data that contradicts it.
here’s an experiment for you…
try burning whatever sacred text of the hindus you want to do, and make it in a nice public display
do the same with the burning of the koran
compare responses
hth
August 31, 2010, 3:02 amwhit says:
Whatever the point was, it would be pretty funny if Jones found out mid-bonfire he was burning a bunch of Bibles. (And yes, it would be just as funny if some radical imam inadvertently burned a bunch of Qurans.)
i think that would be pretty funny. somebody ring up ashton kutcher and see if he can arrange something
August 31, 2010, 3:08 amRicardo says:
I agree with your broad point, but there are Hindu fanatics in India who have engaged in violence. Christian communities and missionaries have been attacked by people generally linked to the fascistic group RSS and similar elements were responsible for the pogram against Muslims in Gujarat. A famous Indian Muslim artist who produces nude paintings of Hindu goddesses has faced both court cases and death threats over his work and has left India and renounced his citizenship. I suspect there is an eye-for-an-eye principle at work here: Hindus see that fanatical Muslims can sometimes force others to defer to their intolerant beliefs and so the most intolerant and bigoted among the Hindus start to think they ought to be doing the same thing.
Needless to say, there are many Hindus both in India and in other countries who despise groups like the RSS and what they stand for, but within India, the fanatics have some clout and the ability to intimidate and silence opponents.
August 31, 2010, 3:54 amTatil says:
A group of heavily armed soldiers speaking a strange language arrive at your town claiming that they come in peace and that they are only trying to make your life better.
Another group of people who speaks your language claim that the foreign soldiers are actually enemies who are only pretending to be on your side. When asked for proof, they show you a video of the prominent foreign leaders proudly burning the holy book you hold very dear. You are poor, barely literate, cannot speak a foreign language and live in a remote town. You cannot just pick up the latest copy of “The Economist” or “New York Times” to get a different point of view. Do you join the resistance? Does the holy book burning hurt or help the foreign soldiers? Does this situation have any resemblance to abortion clinics? Oh, by the way, the foreign soldiers speak the same language that your grandfather fought against during the war for independence.
August 31, 2010, 3:57 amwhit says:
great, but at worse that’s stuff within india. again, worldwide, critics of hinduism have little to nothing to worry about.
but those are good points about india
August 31, 2010, 4:01 amDr. George Gallant says:
Dove World Outreach Center:
August 31, 2010, 4:28 amThe “Dove” in your church name is supposed to represent peace but in your case, I am having second thoughts. What you are saying to all those individuals that believe in Islam, I will not take my time to convey the Gospel to people like you. It is not the Koran you are burning it is the Gospel Message of God to these people for now they will never want to hear about this Jesus. Nevertheless, you have put the lives of those individuals who are reaching the people of the Islamic persuasion in extreme difficulty, did you ever think of this, I do not think so.
The Christian community is not applauding you for this inconsiderate act of lunacy. The Church has enough problems without people like you who would destroy years of work because you are hurt because of 9/11. You have not only placed the true Christians, who work with Muslims’ in danger, but you have placed the entire Christian world as a target for that left wing radical Muslim.
Your ego has inflamed a fire in the hearts of many Muslims, and they will only remember that the “Burning” was the accomplished by Christians, not by your LEFT WING CHRUCH.
You lack the respect of any true Christian for you have as little tolerance just as the Muslim radicals do. One day you will be standing before God, and He will ask you why you committed such an act. Where is your long suffering that Jesus spoke of, I will not quote chapter and verse because I have concerns if you even own or have read the Bible?
Owen H. says:
You’re absolutely right, Whit. No other religion has ever had a history of using violence on a large scale for any reason at all.
Where’s the “roll eyes” emoticon when I need it?
August 31, 2010, 7:16 ammattski says:
Kirk,
In the comment you referenced I wasn’t contrasting our western culture with Islamic culture. I was talking specifically about the nature of insults. I was expressing the opinion that an insult is a manifestation of fear. That’s a universal human truth, if you ask me.
Christian values (many of which I admire and share despite not being a Christian) are not very different than Islamic values. Many self-described Christians have trouble living their values, just as many self-described Muslims have the same problem. Sadly, many religious folks (of all descriptions) interpret their religions so selectively as to render the teaching unrecognizable.
That’s not a Christian problem or an Islamic problem, it’s a universal human problem.
August 31, 2010, 7:45 amKen Arromdee says:
The fact that the Westerners actually burned a Koran makes no difference in this scenario because the people who speak your language could just fake the video if they didn’t have a real one. Since you are poor, barely literate, don’t speak English, and live in a remote town, you would be unable to detect a faked video and a fake would incite equal outrage.
Remember when the real Mohammed cartoons weren’t provocative enough so some fakes were added?
August 31, 2010, 10:24 amHarold Day says:
Americans don’t do terrorist bombings and decapitations when (whosoever’s) Religion is insulted, and American Christians, Jews, Mormons, Unitarians and the (nice) Wiccans don’t kill others here and abroad when their beliefs are “offended.”
What’s all this malarky about India? We’re talking about the asymmetrical morality of the offense-violence dynamic between America and the West and Islamism, the radicalized, militarized, fundamentalist, jihadicized branch of Islam having the tacit support of many but certainly not all Muslims.
I can’t know if the Army persona upthread is real, but do know our military personnel are trained in cultural nuance and sensivity, which is a good and smart thing; and, while it doesn’t follow they must respect the extremism they encounter, they’re big boys and girls and deal with it rationally for everyone’s sake and for the good of the mission. Troops who have seen Bible desecrations and heard Kill Christians and Jews chants overseas don’t use such religious or political hate expression as a “needless provocation” to justify kicking some butt. They’d consider it wimpy and weak to act so insecure as to commit honor or diss killings.
Exercising moral symmetry entails our not reacting with violence to their hate speech AND expecting they not do same on account of ours. We are not a shame and honor culture and shouldn’t abide being drawn into another’s. They would rue it because we have bigger WMD.
So far…
August 31, 2010, 10:24 amScott says:
Actually, the reason there is a Piss Christ is that Serrano is a devout Catholic, and wanted to draw attention to the physical dimension of the Incarnation – the fact that Christ was incarnate as a physical human being, and not some sort of solid-light illusion. There are companion pieces that utilize water tinged with blood and with milk, but of course the piece involving urine gets the most attention due to its title and the perceived disrespect inherent in the use of bodily waste.
August 31, 2010, 11:18 amTed says:
Do you think is the result of religious doctrine? I think it’s more a result of social/cultural norms. I wonder if the reason Christians don’t attack and kill people for heresy is because they in places that such a reaction is both illegal and socially unacceptable. I seem to recall Christians killing people for heresy the last time they had the power to do so with impunity.
In the same vein, I think you should consider whether Muslims would be so violent if most of them lived in places where such violence was illegal and socially unacceptable. Maybe religion is the culprit, maybe it’s the social structure in which particular religions thrive, that make one more violent than the other.
August 31, 2010, 12:00 pmCynical says:
“Popping the bubble” is a consequence of having too much interaction with Muslims. As a consequence of our thirst for petroleum, we overthrow governments which threaten our supply and our “open borders” policies turn Muslim grievances into local issues (and threats). They increasingly view anything contrary to Sharia as something to be abolished, by whatever means.
What do you want, a republican government under the Constitution or open borders and imported oil? It appears we cannot have both.
Islam demands “respect” for the book called the Koran and the “prophet” (and murderer, and pedophile) Mohammed. If Muslims are going to live here, they are going to have to get used to people saying and doing things they consider blasphemous. If the goal is to force Muslims to stop threatening and start adapting, what’s the alternative to blasphemy? Your position seems to be “don’t do anything considered blasphemous under Islam”, which is no alternative at all. Either we have Constitutional rights and rule of law, or we don’t.
August 31, 2010, 12:04 pmTed says:
This is an interesting argument. Only, why direct it at adapting population? Why don’t the Dovies burn bibles to prove that US law tolerates offensive speech? I mean, if you’re going to prove that the US is tolerant, shouldn’t your demonstration include speech that is offensive to the majority of the population? I think it would show great courage and cunning for the Dovies to burn bibles instead of Korans.
August 31, 2010, 12:37 pmfooburger says:
Sadly, in this case, yes. I’m pretty certain this *cough* ‘liability’ is why comedy central nixed the south park episode and retroactively removed a previous one.
My question: Is there a precedent for Quran burning in the public sphere? If this guy is breaking new ground in exercising free speech, or re-breaking ground long left unstirred, it makes sense to support him like any others who would push the boundary ostensibly at their risk.
(Jury analysis void in Nevada and a few other less suit-happy states.)
August 31, 2010, 12:51 pmfooburger says:
People deface christian symbols all the time with no consequence, so I don’t know why there would be any inherent ‘courage’ in doing so.
Many previous encounters with degradation of islam/islamic symbols have been met with various results. In each act of self-censorship like the southpark incident, I see some support for people establishing that we really are still free to ‘blaspheme’ here.
Do this once, you make a point. Do this over and over again while nobody’s threatening you, you’re being a jerk.
August 31, 2010, 1:44 pmCynical says:
You mean, like burning flags?
Let Hooper burn bibles if he wants to. Let him burn copies of the Book of Mormon, Scientology tracts and whatever Sutras he feels like also. I predict that there will be no acts of violence against him (threats are another matter, see PZ Myers little bit of theater dubbed “Crackergate”). Islam is unique.
August 31, 2010, 3:28 pmSarcastro says:
Which is why we must burn down their Mosques!
August 31, 2010, 3:39 pmwhit says:
oh here we go with the history crap AGAIN
why don’t you bring up the crusades or the inquisition
this canard is used every time we have any type of discussion of this sort
here’s a hint. we are talking about the world AS IT IS
not history, ancient or otherwise.
when and if jews and christians start killing people for daring to insult their religion, get back to me.
it doesn’t happen. it DOES happen with islam
hth
August 31, 2010, 5:09 pmwhit says:
rubbish. the whole point is that muslims are UNIQUE in that they are the ones killing, rioting, etc. over insults to their religion
for pete’s sake, south park has been ripping on jesus for years. artists have dunked crucifixes in urine and smeared the virgin (ok, alleged virgin :) ) mary with dung, etc. etc. scorcese did NOT have to go into hiding a la rushdie
again, let’s deal with facts. the facts are, that in a country with majority christians, you can rip on christianity with no fear of harm
it isn’t brave at all. it’s been done before.
endlessly
August 31, 2010, 5:12 pmleo marvin says:
Fair warning: If burning L. Ron Hubbard books provokes some nut job to make a Battlefied Earth sequel, I’m gonna hold some people morally responsible. Just saying.
August 31, 2010, 5:36 pmwhit says:
i think it’s primarily the result of the fact that judaism, christianity have had a real reformation. islam hasn’t
frankly, it doesn’t really concern me. my point is that if any religion, belief system etc. tries to impose a heckler’s veto, it is practically our duty to fight back extra hard.
no religion gets a pass. nobody is above contempt or ridicule. period
the situation that will not stand is the one where one particular religion gets that pass, because we are afraid. sorry. won’t fly with me.
August 31, 2010, 5:41 pmwhit says:
and of course, as i said, the fact that there is a piss christ and not a piss koran is because no devout muslim would do such a thing, etc.
we can get as arty-farty as you want, but the reality is that no artist would have dared to make a piss koran, but they DID dare to make a piss christ because they knew damn well the latter wouldn’t result in them getting a death sentence on their head
August 31, 2010, 5:44 pmChris Travers says:
Disagree. A while ago, there was a story here on VC where a guy put up a bunch of cartoons on utility poles depicting Mohammed as a pedophile. The local Somali population demanded prosecution and said they would be “very unhappy” if there was not such. Of course free speech carried the day, and the local Somali population probably carried out their threat literally (in the sense of being unhappy) but there was no violence. Why would you have predicted a lack of violence in that case?
August 31, 2010, 7:01 pmChris Travers says:
Rushdie is a different case though because the capital crime he committed wasn’t blasphemy but apostasy. The argument was he was born a Muslim and no true Muslim would write a novel like The Satanic Verses. Therefore he was an apostate. While I don’t think this was a good idea for Khomeni to endorse for extra-territoriality reasons, you can’t read much into it beyond its facts.
August 31, 2010, 7:04 pmHugo Mendez says:
I presume you will agree that CAIR and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf will not be held responsible for the violent actions of the Taliban and Al Qaida if the American people do not allow the Mosque to be built near the site of the 9/11 attacks.
Just
August 31, 2010, 7:38 pmHugo Mendez says:
Are you suggesting that Obama is an apostate because he was born into a Muslim family and subsequently became a Christian?
August 31, 2010, 7:41 pmChris Travers says:
It’s reasonable to assume that some Muslims might think so. What that has to do with Mr Obama’s character, policies, or substantive reasons to vote for or against him, I don’t know. it seems to be entirely irrelevant to anything, but it has been the most intelligent “Obama is a Muslim” sort of argument I have ever heard (or rather “Obama might be seen by some as a former Muslim”). The blogger I read then tried to argue that this would be a bad thing for relations with the Islamic world which is where he lost me.
August 31, 2010, 8:09 pmTatil says:
Does Christian Serbs killing Muslim Bosnians count as recent enough or for a reason unacceptable enough for you?
August 31, 2010, 8:12 pmwhit says:
did christian serbs kill bosnian muslims MERELY for insulting christianity?
i wasn’t aware that was the case…
September 1, 2010, 1:37 amwhit says:
oh for pete’s sake. for all i know trey parker and/.or matt stone were “born christian” (or buddhist or jewish) and are thus “apostates” too.
keerist, the level of wanking about this is amazing, when the facts are clear
there is only one religion whose adherents routinely kill and riot when somebody dares make fun of their religion, and there is only one religion that people in the US are literally afraid to criticize. heck, the NYT et al were even afraid to print the offending cartoons as part of a news story.
September 1, 2010, 1:40 amwhit says:
you can disagree all you want, but your anecdote doesn’t disprove what i said
try reading it again
if i said ALWAYS, you would have a point. i didn’t
saying group A “routinely and predictably” does X in response to Y is not saying group A (or members thereof) ALWAYS do X in response to Y.
that shouldn’t need explaining…
i’m sure you can find plenty of cases where islam/mohammed was insulted and no violence ensued.
it is still a fact that it predictably and routinely does happen, time after time. counterexamples don’t disprove a generality.
and the fact is, out of all the religious figures made fun of, comedy central only censored one… and for damn good reason…
September 1, 2010, 1:45 amChris Travers says:
Can you point to violence in or against the US which is clearly fomented by criticizing Islam? I don’t think 9/11 can count. We do see that sort of thing happen in or against European countries, however.
I am not afraid to criticize Islam, btw. I just think it’s important to keep criticisms accurate. For example, if I say “One major challenge is that Muslims in most of the world see their religion as inherently about public policy and law. This is incompatible with the US and so we need to be very careful about how many Muslims we let immigrate, and I would not want to live in a Muslim country, even a moderate one like Indonesia,” that would be close to my view of things. I don’t imagine it even causing an outcry however.
September 1, 2010, 6:33 pmA.W. says:
Mattski
> Why would you insult “the man with the rusty scimitar”?
Funny you place quotes around those words, but those are not literally my words. As I said now twice, if you take an attitude that you aren’t going to insult religious figures, period, and you do so out of the goodness of your heart. But if you practice or demand discrimination among religions in your treatment and ESPECIALLY if that discrimination is based on the fear the guy will kill you that is a problem.
And why would you actively choose to insult someone threatening to kill you? Well, asked and answered. In fact, I linked to my own blog dedicated to more or less the same principle.
> Is hurling insults effective? Have you learned nothing from the VC comment threads?
Actually the VC comments show us that it is pointless to enforce civility with violence, which is why it is pretty rare to see anyone even bother to threaten anyone, let alone kill someone, over anything said here.
And you know what? The everyone draw Mohammed movement did the same thing.
September 7, 2010, 3:15 pmPerpetua says:
Hi AW,
I don’t understand your points at all.
Threatening violence on the VC comment threads are pointless because people aren’t using their real names so you can’t actually find and hurt them.
But what I learned from Everyone Draw Mohammed Day was that the woman who came up with the idea was so scared by the threats against her that she withdrew her support for the idea. And even so now has a fatwa on her and is very frightened.
So, what were your points in bringing up those examples?
September 7, 2010, 3:21 pmPorkchop says:
It’s not like anyone else agrees with me though, except for maybe General Petraeus and the rest of the US Army.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39047968
September 7, 2010, 8:49 pmTy Right says:
if here on a libertarian site, there is not a serious argument made by most people, that freedom of speech is the right to be offensive, and this freedom is only in need of protection when people find such expression offensive and try to restrict it because it is offensive, and that we must marshal our best arguments to the highest argument, which is that freedom of speech is far far more important, and indeed paramount, than people’s feelings 7000 miles away blowing their stacks, because we won’t and don’t agree with their mores and rules, then it will be made nowhere. Regardless of Terry’s act being sensible or not the fact that 95 out a hundred people here aren’t defending against the concept of the Heckler’s veto, means that the First Amendment is not truly dear to Americans anymore. If not here, then obviously nowhere. Frankly the discussion here is the same as at HuffPo. a lot of comments about how Terry should not express himself, rather than defense of his right to do so no matter how execrable we judge his expression. Obviously this is a not a Blog page in Homage to Voltaire, JS Mill or Jefferson. It sounds like a discussion of whether the alien and sedition act is not perhaps acceptable? Disappointed by all of you, Even E.V, you plural, the premiere defenders of libertarianism and liberty, and the 1st amendment? You betcha. I’m a nobody with no training, you are learned. If not you, then whom?
September 8, 2010, 3:20 amTy Right says:
Porkchop writes:
“It’s not like anyone else agrees with me though, except for maybe General Petraeus and the rest of the US Army.”
It is totally unseemly and improper for a General in the US Armed forces to make attempts to intercede in a civilian issue of contitutional import. Completely and utterly improper, and crossing of boundaries that the founding fathers would have considered
totally wrong, A General from a standing army lecturing Civilian USA, on what it should and shouldn’t do?
And who really speaks for the rest of the US Army? Porkchop? Petraeus?
September 8, 2010, 3:37 amHow do I know the the average GI Joe and Jane would not wipe their butts with the aforementioned sacred book of fairy tales, if they weren’t aware that they would otherwise be court-martialled? They don’t get to speak much, and all we hear is PC stuff carefully edited and chosen. This has been the most Journalistically sanitized war that I have witnessed in my 63 years. Only chosen speak official party lines. No one is asking soldiers of what they really think of the people they are fighting and their culture and their religion, and their sacred book of fairy tales, and any such questions have become verbotten in the PC USA in which the 1st Amendment is perhaps construed to be just a handmaiden to Government policy? Doesn’t anyone have passsion for our liberties anymore?
Porkchop says:
As I stated earlier, they have the right to burn the Koran publicly if they want to, but they are dumbasses for doing it, and they endanger others while exercising that right. It sends a message, but not the one they think.
September 8, 2010, 7:07 amPorkchop says:
I am reminded of a playground phenomenon from my youth. There was usually a kid who stood around fomenting disputes in a manner that my father used to characterize as, “Let’s you and him fight.”
The chances of any violence being directed against the Dove World Outreach Center are small. The chances of additional violence being directed against U.S. troops in Afghanistan or elsewhere in Muslim parts of the world are pretty good. How is that a good result? How is endangering someone else so that you can satisfy your desire to put on a spectacle moral?
What exactly does burning the Koran accomplish anyway? The burning of 150 or 200 Korans is, I suppose, intended to be some kind of symbolic gesture. But symbols are subject to interpretation. The message they think they are sending to Muslims is not the one that Muslims will perceive. The Dovies are not under some imminent danger of Muslim domination (except perhaps in their fevered imaginations). Their act of “defiance” does not defy anything or anyone; all it does is fuel a fire that we are trying to put out.
Specifically, what it does is undermine an important aspect of the war in Afghanistan — convincing enough Afghans that the United States is not their enemy so that there will be a sustainable, non-hostile, non-Taliban government after we leave. As I said earlier, this is a war for hearts and minds.
Let me repeat: They have a right to do that, but it is unwise and unproductive to do so.
It is not in the interest of the United States to create additional enemies among Muslims around the world. We may disapprove of social conditions in Islamic countries (even our allies), but that does not mean that we must or should go to war over them. For one thing, United States military power is not inexhaustible. The United States does not have the capability to fight a prolonged war of attrition against the billion-plus Muslims in the world. We don’t have the troops, technology alone is not going to make up for that deficiency, and our economy can’t support it.
9/11 was not Pearl Harbor; we don’t have to have World War III over this. If we do, it is unlikely to lead to the kind of complete victory that we had in World War II. At best, it would leave both sides exhausted and result in an international power vacuum that would be filled by countries such as China and Russia. The United States really started to become a world power only after World War I had exhausted the resources of Britain, France, and Germany. None of those countries ever really recovered from that war. The balance of power shifted permanently. It can shift again.
September 8, 2010, 11:25 amA.W. says:
perpetua
actually, then you missed the show on everyone draw mohammed. Yes, the original woman withdrew. she claimed a change of heart, but honestly if you watched the video when she “withdrew” it, it had a very creepy “hostage video” vibe. I don’t mean she was literally being held hostage, but she seemed scared and distraught and very false in her denial. I would link to it, but she took it down after alot of people made the same observation. There was alot of other evidence to that point, too.
But nonetheless, in an “army of davids” sort of way, alot of other people said, “i don’t care if she withdrew, it is still on.” i was one of those people. a bunch of guys ran one on facebook, too, and there were alot of spin offs, too. at the peak of it, over 100,000 people participated on facebook, and 700 at my own site. it was a big enough deal that my site and others were literally banned in pakistan, and i suspect if i ever went there, i would be tried (i gave out my real name on the site) and potentially executed. But then i don’t even own a passport, so low risk there.
the point of bringing it up, is to say that this is an example of non-governmental censorship. its one thing to hold your tongue because you are just a nice person. i respect that. and while keeping quiet because you fear you will lose your job is troublesome, its in a different realm entirely when a person chooses to use violence–either violence of private individuals or the violence of state action–to restrain you from speaking your mind.
I find it highly dubious that this city is claiming it doesn’t allow for expressive bonfires, especially given that its the home of the Gators football team. so this would be selective exclusion. that’s one point.
The other point, more directed to Hooper’s free riding on terrorism, is, well, summed up pretty well with this speech on south park:
telling a man not to draw a cartoon or not to burn a book, lest people get killed by terrorists, is he same thing in my book. Hooper has peeled the mask off his fat face and basically tried to use terrorism to his own ends.
btw, i am still very heavily medicated from surgery and i probably have more typos than usual. for that i apologize and ask you to bear with me.
September 8, 2010, 2:05 pmWill says:
This article is a circuitous, illogical pos.
Non-sequitur anyone? Where does Hooper make suggestions of responsibility?
Yikes.
September 8, 2010, 7:47 pmShahzaib says:
Hello All,
I really liked reading all the responses and this is the first time I found some educated people who knows what they are talking about. Anyway, regardless of weather he burn quran or not, I could never do that to bible. Bibe is secred book for christians, as well as muslims. Islam is the religion of piece and just because of one gang (al-Quaida) you can’t blame 1.5 billion muslims for it. Please read before you speak, so some research if you are not sure. There are good and bad people all over the world, some justify their acts, some don’t but no one just want to kill anyone for no reason. Think about it…
September 9, 2010, 11:31 amPerpetua says:
Hi Shahzaib
Just to clarify, the comments by Sarcastro are sarcastic comments. That means he is making fun of people whose ideas he thinks are wrong by saying the opposite of what he really means. For example, here he doesn’t think we should burn down mosques. He is trying to demonstrate that that is a wrong way of thinking.
Cynical: I predict that there will be no acts of violence against him (threats are another matter, see PZ Myers little bit of theater dubbed “Crackergate”). Islam is unique.
Sarcastro: Which is why we must burn down their Mosques!
Here he doesn’t really mean that we should burn down mosques. He is being sarcastic.
September 9, 2010, 1:20 pmA.W. says:
shah
if the bible is so sacred to muslims, then why is it illegal to distribute them in many muslim countries?
And what do they do with them when they end in their country. Do they ship it back “return to sender?” Or more likely do they dispose of them, lest some muslim accidentally read it and question whether Allah is the one true God?
the fact is freedom of religion is the right to blaspheme other religions. Because as a practical reality, your sacred belief is very often blasphemy to me. You said that Mohammed is the cheif prophet of God and Jesus was not God’s son. Both statements are necessary in your faith, and offensive to mine as a christian. and that is okay.
tolerance is not about enforced niceness. it is allowing everyone to speak freely, even rudely on these things, and us TOLERATING the insults to our faith. So show your tolerance by saying, “i wish he wouldn’t do it, but it is his right.”
Besides fetishizing a book is unbecoming of any religion.
September 9, 2010, 2:46 pmA.W. says:
btw, fwiw, the paster has called off the burning.
September 9, 2010, 5:18 pmA.W. says:
actually maybe it is on again. go to hot air where they are following the murky details.
September 10, 2010, 11:30 amA.K says:
I think the key interpretive word in the quote is “danger.” Danger to whom? Professor Volokh’s interpretation may be accurate–in which case his argument follows.
However, it could also be the case that Hooper spoke imprecisely and was referring to an increased danger to all involved.
Jones’ actions could believably be seen by some as convincing evidence that America is a nation of Muslim-haters who have sent soldiers to occupy, control or dominate Muslim countries.
I’m talking about less-educated people who have lived their entire lives in Iraq or Afghanistan–where 1st Amendment-styled free speech is a strange and foreign concept.
Even non-violent law-abiding folks can cause danger to themselves and those around them when they resent and distrust a peacekeeping force. The danger can arise from citizens passively refusing to cooperate thus exacerbating tensions and prolonging violent conflict.
September 14, 2010, 3:14 am