Friday, September 10, 2010
Morning observations re Koran burning
Tom Maguire had some fun yesterday with the now called-off (or not?) Koran burning:
President Obama follows Sarah Palin's lead in condemning the Quran burning slated for Sept 11.
He's such an imp.
And then there is this:
Why are these Quran crackpots being given a platform to hold our national security hostage and endanger our troops?
OK, part of the answer is that this started as a lovely opportunity for the liberal media to bash some crazed righties. Fun's fun, but if the media is so worried about this, they might wonder why they feel obliged to cover it. Will CNN be broadcasting live from the bonfire? I bet they will. But if fifty people gathered to demand a look at Obama's birth certificate (or Kerry's military records!), they would be ignored as crazy but not incendiary. Or, closer to home, this is the same media that refused to publish the Mohammed cartoons that started riots in Europe. Deep-sixing stories that don't fit their narrative is what these people do for a living - why not bury this one?
Some crackpot dreamed up a stunt that the liberal media loved, and now they don't know how to get off the tiger. Well done.
Indeed.
One small aside: Some of the righties in my life have noted that Christian bibles get destroyed all the time and nobody gives a flip (see this old story, which has scrolled across my Facebook page several times today). Perhaps this is a false implied analogy, for Christianity and Islam regard their holy scriptures differently*. As a matter of doctrine, any given copy of a Christian bible is simply a copy of a translation, with no inherent significance. It is not inherently disrespectful to scrap a bible. Muslims, on the other hand, regard an individual physical Koran, particularly in the original Arabic, as in and of itself holy, a manifestation of the actual words of Allah as conveyed by his Messenger. Willful destruction of a Koran is, as I understand it, an offense to Allah. Equating one to the other does not, therefore, deepen our understanding of the argument.
__________________________________________________
*I cannot remember where I read this, and therefore have no source at hand. As is always the case, feel free to straighten me out if you believe I'm getting it wrong.
21 Comments:
By 
Foxfier, at
Fri Sep 10, 11:41:00 AM:
One up on that: the Eucharist gets defiled with depressing regularity, and still: no riots, even though that is the body of Christ.
I, too, have heard that Islam holds their holy writing to be more holy/important than Christianity holds the Bible, but I also seem to remember that's a pretty standard explanation offered for ANYTHING Muslims want to happen: women showing beauty (sexuality is holy), images of Mohammed (he's holy), unclean animals (symbolic cleanliness), terrorism (ground Muslims have held were converted to Islam, and thus they have a holy requirement to defend them), etc.
I sort of wonder if it's another factoid that is rooted in the person explaining it not caring about the Bible and thus figuring no Christians do... some of the things above match with Catholic thought, we just don't kill folks over it. I'll see what I can find....
By Foxfier, at
Fri Sep 10, 11:57:00 AM:
Only thing I can find is that the Koran is the word of god, rather than the inspired word of God like the Bible.
(On a side note, non-Arabic Korans are not considered as accurate. Bets on if the guy in Florida got 'em in English?)
Seems they see a distinction without a difference, when you consider even as young as Islam is, the language has to have shifted. (putting it in the same situation as the Bible)
By 
, at
Fri Sep 10, 12:23:00 PM:
Remember Piss Christ? A crucifix in a glass of urine?
Nobody came out except Catholics to demonstrate against this! The Media don't care, but gloried in this act of desecration. Liberalism is all about showcasing acts of desecration of Christian things all the time. No President, No congress, No media complained about Piss Christ!
The Muslims in Gaza burnt bibles and destroyed a church and attack Christians---not a word in the Media!
It's great that there is consternation now in the media about their flamin' interest in this story.
I say let the war begin! I personally wouldn't burn a koran or draw cartoons about Muhammed--there is such a thing called the Virtue of Reverence. But Virtue seems to be lacking everywhere in today's world. I hope the burning does occur though---show up how useless liberalism really is.
I'm a military veteran with six years active service during time of war (Desert Storm), people burn the American flag all the time. I get mad, but then the media and our government don't care due to Liberalism and everybody has the right of free speech and to desecrate one's country's flag and religious symbols of Christianity for free speech.
If you can burn the American Flag, put a crucifix in a glass of urine-----then you can burn the g__D___ bloody koran as well. It's time to start this war with Muslims and see how Liberalism works!
By MTF, at
Fri Sep 10, 12:41:00 PM:
One depressing conjunction, though entirely predictable, of these two stories is going to be when the principals finally meet. Imam Rauf and Pastor Jones are obviously publicity hounds of the first order and the first item on their meeting agenda will obviously be "how do we extend media coverage of this (these) stories?". How indeed, one might ask, but I am certain that these two will figure it out. If nothing else, they will shortly have Westboro Baptist involved, along with Ahmadinejad and the leadership of al Qaeda, so the stars will really align for ongoing media stardom. Next thing you know, there will be an international fruitcake summit meeting.
By Foxfier, at
Fri Sep 10, 12:45:00 PM:
MTF-
Already are, with the Westb**erds adding an American flag, and the new black panthers are threatening the first jerks. (gateway pundit has been keeping track)
By MTF, at
Fri Sep 10, 02:04:00 PM:
Wow. TV coverage really draws in the looney tunes, doesn't it?
By MTF, at
Fri Sep 10, 02:06:00 PM:
Have we heard from Chavez and Penn yet? It's only a matter of time.
By frostbite9, at
Fri Sep 10, 03:48:00 PM:
It's been my experience that trying to weigh offense or grief is a bit like trying to measure wit or count joy -- neither accurate nor helpful.
That being said, different faiths deal with Incarnation differently -- for most Christians, God becomes accessible to us through the Word, the Logos who is Christ, Godself. That said, for Islam, that Incarnation of God among us is the Qu'ran. So, the analog is Christ and the Qu'ran, not the Bible and the Qu'ran. The burning of the Qu'ran is not like the burning of a Bible, it's like the Crucifixion. That's what we learned in the seminary, anyway.
By Unknown, at
Fri Sep 10, 04:13:00 PM:
Somehow everytime I go to McDonalds I'm not threated by Hindus for my trangressions against cows (and my Hindu Indian friends never bring it up). Ditto for Jews and pork etc.
My work in places like Pakistan, UAE and North Africa leads me to believe that ordinary Mohammed guys are not out to make a big issue on this kind of stuff, BUT... They are reluctant to disagree with the professional clerical troublemakers and activists and many can easily convince themselves to be offended.
The best thing we can do is to tell them to buzz off. We don't control everyones actions in the USA (yet) and destroying inanimate objects are not yet a crime. We need to stand up for our own beliefs of freedom.
By , at
Fri Sep 10, 04:20:00 PM:
Off-topic but relevant. From a Rauf interview on CNN:
RAUF: As I just mentioned, our national security now hinges on how we negotiate this, how we speak about it, and what we do. It is important for us now to raise the bar on our conversation–
O’BRIEN: What’s the risk? When you say “national security,” what’s the risk?
RAUF: As I mentioned, because if we move, that means the radicals have shaped the discourse. The radicals will shape the discourse on both sides. And those of us who are moderates on both sides — you see Soledad, the battle front is not between Muslims and non-Muslims. The real battle front is between moderates on all sides of all the faith traditions and the radicals on all sides. The radicals actually feed off each other. And in some kind of existential way, need each other. And the more that the radicals are able to control the discourse on one side, it strengthens the radicals on the other side and vice versa.
There are already about 80 mosques in NYC. According to Rauf. "moderate" Christians support building another mosque in NYC at Ground Zero. There are no non-Muslim religious buildings in Saudi Arabia. Does Rauf mean that "moderates" in Islam would support building a church or synagogue in Saudi Arabia ?
Just sayin’
By Foxfier, at
Fri Sep 10, 04:33:00 PM:
Frostbite9-
that would by why I pointed out the atheist standard of stealing a consecrated Host and defiling it.
By , at
Fri Sep 10, 04:58:00 PM:
> some of the things above match with Catholic thought, we just don't kill folks over it.
Hooooo boy. Have you actually read any history? Catholics -- and Protestants -- have spilled oceans of blood over religion.
These days, Christians are a lot tamer than they used to be. Which is good!
By Foxfier, at
Fri Sep 10, 05:58:00 PM:
Gee, Anon, care to give an example of Catholics killing folks because they are symbolically unclean, in accordance with the Catholic Church? Ditto for perverting sexuality from its proper holy framework, or killing the current inhabitants of a country because the land was baptized?
How about you learn to read before you start snarking about people reading history?
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Sep 11, 10:17:00 AM:
"an example of Catholics killing folks because they are symbolically unclean, in accordance with the Catholic Church?"
The Albigensian Crusade? Periodic anti-Jewish pogroms? The Inquisitions? Burning of Protestants during the Reformation?
"perverting sexuality from its proper holy framework"
Assigning 'proper holy' characterizations or limitations at all may count as a perversion to some people. It's subjective.
"killing the current inhabitants of a country because the land was baptized"
See: Sack of Jerusalem, 1099 A.D.
By , at
Sat Sep 11, 10:24:00 AM:
The US media is covering this to support Obama. Chimpy the Kenyan's October surprise will be to have some of his Muslim buddies attack in the US.
The media isn't interested in the fact that the would-be martyrs and their equipment came across the Mexican boarder. The media wants to be able to say that they do not condone but, rather, understand the motivation of the valiant martyrs what with ALL the Koran burning and such
By , at
Sat Sep 11, 10:38:00 AM:
Dawnfire - Anything more recent?
I would not want to give Islam hundreds of years of grace to catch up.
By Foxfier, at
Sat Sep 11, 12:34:00 PM:
Wow, standard list of ignorant claims that aren't even related, Dawnstar! Now, did you go anywhere but wiki for information on those? Here, this site has the responses to the usual ignorant slander and "ooh, you can't kill people who are killing your people" BS.
I notice you couldn't even find a a BS thing that has even shades of keeping little girls in burning buildings because, if they run out to save themselves, someone might see skin. DEAD is not "subjective."
By , at
Sat Sep 11, 03:10:00 PM:
Lest we forget, here is a list of Princetonians who perished on 9/11. According to the November 7, 2001, PAW, one of the few back issues that I have retained, Caswell was on AA Flt. 77, Mello was on AA Flt. 11, and the rest were in the twin towers.
Robert L. Cruikshank '58
Charles A. McCrann '68
William E. Caswell *75
Martin P. Wohlforth '76
Robert J. Deraney '80
Joshua A. Rosenthal *81
Karen J. Klitzman '84
Jeffrey D. Wiener '90
John T. Schroeder '92
Christopher N. Ingrassia '95
Robert G. McIlvaine '97
Christopher D. Mello '98
Catherine F. MacRae '00
JLW III '67
By , at
Sat Sep 11, 08:51:00 PM:
http://www.redstate.com/dia0420/2010/09/10/disproportionate-response/
Maybe the Muslims will cool off, but it will probably be long after everybody now alive is dead.
When Andres Serrano can do a Piss Muhammed without fear of murder I'll beleive that the Muslims are worthy of respect.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Sep 11, 10:47:00 PM:
Davod: No, not especially. But is there a statute of limitations on religious atrocities? Foxflier merely wanted examples from history.
Foxflier: 'Ignorant claims' my ass.
"the crusading army stormed the walls and engaged in a general slaughter of the population." - the webpage you sent me to, talking about the sack of Jerusalem.
Yeah, super job of disproving what I said.
Now allow me to counter with links of my own. In case you lack the time or courage to go there, this one is a summary of anti-Semitic actions by the Catholic church.
One charming example: "The marriage of a Jewish man to a Christian woman [b]ecame punishable by death."
Another fun one: "Pope Innocent III wrote to the archbishops of Sens and Paris that "the Jews, by their own guilt, are consigned to perpetual servitude because they crucified the Lord...As slaves rejected by God, in whose death they wickedly conspire, they shall by the effect of this very action, recognize themselves as the slaves of those whom Christ's death set free..."
Lastly, here is a historical description of the Albigensian Crusade. For the unfamiliar, this was a bona fide Papal Crusade called against French heretics in and around Languedoc in the 13th century. A local ruling noble, Raymond VI, was excommunicated for the heinous religious crime of refusing to slaughter his own subjects.
An example: "1233-Pope Gregory IX supported the Dominican-run Inquisition, allowing it limitless powers to torture and burn heretics at the stake. The institution was established in Languedoc in April 1233. Cathati were ruthlessly sought out. As expected, many resisted and took refuge in castles of viscouny of Fenouillèdes or in Montségur. Sick, eldery, and even exhumed bodies were burned. The Inquisition's gruesome excesses incited revolts that continued for many years in Narbonne, Cordes, Carcassonne, Albi, and Toulouse."
You can go look up the burning of Protestants yourself (though 'Bloody Mary' is a hint). Anonymous had the right of it. You seem like you could use an education in history that doesn't come from a seminary...
By Foxfier, at
Sat Sep 11, 11:42:00 PM:
You still haven't given any of the examples I specifically asked for...thrown a standard pile of fertilizer, yeah, but not really aligned with what was asked.
Did you even bother to look at your own link? The Council of Elvira forbid giving girls in marriage (and thus sex) with any who weren't Christian (also forbid harvest blessing and eating with Jews), the second is an action by the Roman government, and the third is a flat out lie. (second to last paragraph)
Three strikes, you're out.
While claiming to be a good Catholic, Raymond VI was known to be a Cathar, rather openly, as were a bunch of his command structure. Oh, and there's the whole assassinating Church officials thing....
Your quote about the Monastic Inquisition is also flatly wrong, since the Dominicans in France could not burn anyone-- they could turn over heretics they found to the civil authorities, and depending on the local laws and if the heretics were obstinate, the civil authorities could execute them. Burning was the standard form of execution. (the change was that it removed the duty to search out heretics from the local Bishops, not that one could be found a heretic and killed)
Maybe when you get tired of complaining that historical standard actions aren't modern enough for you, you can learn to find sources that aren't reaching and deluding themselves at best, or lying at worst.
