As you may know, Terry Jones, a pastor in Gainesville Florida, threatened to stage an anti-Muslim bonfire in his tiny church on the ninth anniversary of 9/11, but called it off today. President Obama had already entered the Burn The Koran - what's the accurate word - palaver, or fray?
Mr Obama condemned the proposed burning of the Muslim holy book as a potential "recruitment bonanza" for Al Qaeda. He contended that the images of Floridian radical evangelicals torching Korans would inspire young people to blow themselves up (and many innocent civilians) in American or European cities. What Mr Obama neglected to mention, but is likely mindful of, is domestic terrorism: The disaffected American-domiciled Muslim.
Such is the power of a clarifying idea, combined with an encouraging circumstance. The same could equally be said of radical Islam, and - to a lesser extent - of Tea Partiers, the right wing group who are as publicly concerned about America's economic and moral decline, as they are quietly worried about shifting demographics that mean non-Hispanic whites will no longer be the majority of the US population within about 30 years.
The President invoked the model of religious tolerance, something that most Americans approve of, even when they don't like how it's applied. Consider the vexed project to build a mosque/community centre near Ground Zero. A recent poll showed that a majority of Americans don't want the thing to be constructed there; it also noted that most Americans recognised that - under the US Constitution - those who want to build a mosque have a legally-guaranteed right to do so wherever they chose.
It's called freedom.
"Excess provokes excess," seems to be Mr Obama's thesis. Well, that's true. But excess can also provoke ... um ... mildness.
The other problem with Mr Obama's analysis is that tolerance is invariably tested by fanaticism, rather than modest positions that are thoughtfully adopted. Freedom of speech, for example, is not usually advanced by the righteous prophet uttering unpleasant truths about social wrongs. Rather it's usually tested by the drooling pornographer in the alleyway, distributing smut, and with a lawyer on speed dial.
My apologies to any pornographers who may have been offended by that last caricature.
You see what I mean? Sensitivities, which are vague, and readily affronted, have been elevated beyond legal freedoms. Pastor Terry Jones, who has taken to wearing a gun, after receiving death threats, was as within his rights to burn the Koran as any Muslim in the United States is free to burn Bibles, or copies of James Joyce's Ulysses, or any other volume.
I note that the Afghan Taliban have released a statement saying that if the Koran barbecue went ahead, they would target even "innocent Christians". So, what, were they taking a holiday from doing so before the Reverend's provocative proposal? Or were they just targeting guilty Christians?
What did you think of the plans to burn the Koran? Share your thoughts on the messageboard below.
Read more of Tim Wilson's articles.
World News Video
-
Dangerous rush to Everest summit (1:59)
-
Dozens killed in Syrian massacre (2:09)
-
'King of Romance' competes in Eurovision (1:46)
Add a Comment:
Post new commentSO said on 2010-09-10 @ 23:39 NZDT: Report abusive post
This is NOT what Jesus would do Pastor Jones! Do you know Romans 12 at all? Go do a study on that chapter before you plan anything senseless like this again. I believe its people like you who mislead other people on what a Christian really is. I agree what the muslims did was evil and unthinkable, but God wont let them get away with it. And how God choose to deal with them is none of our business. He doesnt need our help. Pray for your enemies like the Bible tells.
PeteWilson said on 2010-09-10 @ 22:51 NZDT: Report abusive post
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, it is not conditional. Much as one may dislike these redneck jerks who want to burn books, or the Muslims who want to build a Mosque in the most offensive place possible, both parties have a right to do what they want to. There is no point in protecting popular speech. It doesn't need protecting. Freedom requires that we have the right to say what others find abhorent. To succumb to threats is cowardly and undermines all our freedoms.