Hate speech

Terry Jones is an idiot. That is all. Thank you. (See the last paragraph)

No, that is not all. Jones is the Florida "pastor" who threatened to burn a copy of the Quran last September. The Secretary of Defense (!) called Jones to explain why his action endangered the life of American service men and women and all Americans abroad. The POTUS (!!!) publicly urged Jones to reconsider. Every major Christian organization in the world denounced this guy. After a truly international outcry he backed off.

Stupidity on pause - Evidently, deciding that he was more wise than the rest of the world, last month Jones put the Quran on trial and found the book guilty. Its punishment? Burning. He went ahead with his stunt. Now, demonstrations against Jones hateful action have turned violent in Mazar-e Sharif. An attack on a U.N. building in the city that left 12 people killed – eight U.N. workers and four Afghans.

Back in 1987 the artist Andres Serrano caused outrage when he unveiled his photograph, "Piss Christ." Christians (myself included) were offended and wanted the artwork taken down. A pair of youths were arrested for destroying the work with a hammer. Nobody died. When "shock art" works it opens a dialog; gets us thinking and talking. Serrano was unsucessful. People could not get past the "media" he used and the was not dialog but shouting and anger.

The reaction is unfortunate but not surprising. It was recently explained to me that Muslem people hold the same regard for the Quran that Christians hold Jesus. For them, their holy book is the primary way God is revealed to the world. Therefore, the book is the source of salvation. A westerner might say, "but it's only a book!" and would hear back, "you just don't get it." What Jones did was like killing Jesus, which has already been done - but he was raised from the dead - by the Romans and the Sanhedrin. Christians used that for years as the excuse for violence against Jews. Why should we be surprised by the violent reaction now? 

Some Islamic leaders abroad have called Jones to be arrested on charges of international terrorism. That's a bit too far, but I do think he should be arrested under the hate crimes statutes. Perhaps we could put him in jail for life for killing a religious leader, since the book is equivalent to our Jesus.

I'm not supposed to call anyone an idiot. Matthew 5.21-22 reads, “You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not murder’; and ‘whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire. So, I retract the first sentence of this blog. Please forgive me, Terry. But please read this passage with me. Insulting our brother and sisters (yes, they are) also makes you liable to the hell of fire. Stop burning things. Stop hating. Recieve the love and forgiveness of Christ and be transformed. Go forth and sin no more.

Comments

[Jamie Jamison]

Here's my thought - why mention the guy's name and put up his picture? It's obviously attention he wants. I wouldn't give him a bit. I'd edit the post and comment on the situation, but I wouldn't say who he was or give any sort of shout out to him.

I'm glad at the end of the post you pulled back from calling names. The man who did this was wrong to do it. It's not a problem saying his actions are wrong or even sinful, which I agree that they were. But calling him names feeds into the cycle of violence and escalation.

I disagree that he should be arrested. The US is a civil society based on laws, and a book has no legal standing. I would make the same argument about folks who burn the flag, though I know that would be unpopular. Whether or not I agree with what the man did, his actions didn't harm anyone in a legal sense, and he has the right to do it.

If he had gotten precisely zero press - if no one from the film school had been there to film it - if no one posted video of him doing what he did on the web, then the violence wouldn't have happened either. It seems to me that there's some guilt all along the chain of this one. The bulk of that guilt lies with the man who did the deed, but we all share in it when we repeat what happened.

I join with you in denouncing the act, however, and I don't believe it should serve as a reflection of how the average American feels about Muslims or Islam. I wish that our brothers and sisters in the Middle East could understand and believe that.

[Clericeric]

You are right, I'm over reacting. The anti-gay preacher who protests at military funerals causes the same kind of reaction in me. Guess I'm pretty intolerant of intolerance. Oh the irony.

While i only play a lawyer on TV, the idea of pressing charges based on the hate speech seems reasonable. I found this quote, "speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. The term covers written as well as oral communication." That would seem to fit.

Hate speech and free speech are different. From the source of all correct wisdom, Wikipedia, "R.A.V.v. City of St. Paul "As explained earlier ... the reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey. ... [St. Paul] has proscribed fighting words of whatever manner that communicate messages of racial, gender, or religious intolerance. Selectivity of this sort creates the possibility that the city is seeking to handicap the expression of particular ideas. That possibility would alone be enough to render the ordinance presumptively invalid, but St. Paul’s comments and concessions in this case elevate the possibility to a certainty."

[John Knie]

If a Muslim were to hold the Koran in the same regard as a Christian were to hold Jesus, then the Muslim would have effectively committed idolotry as this would amount to worship of an article of human construct.

The destruction or creation of an object can in no way be considered equivalent to warranting the murder of people in protests.
Surprisingly, several Muslim shoppers I encountered tonite at Walmart did not seem inflamed by this event. But perhaps they were awestruck by low, low prices.

Ultimately, this act was for political rather than religious reasons by those with something to gain by the withdrawl of the UN and weakening of the Karzai government.

Is burning a Koran or making a cartoon featuring Muhammad a crime or an act of poor judgement? I would personally commit neither, out of probably misplaced hope for mutual tolerance, as well as poor artistic skills (Muhammad was a stick man? Who knew? :-D)

To even consider prosecution places us on the slippery slope of subjugating ourselves to the demands of those same who would persecute us for abiding by our own faith.

[Clericeric]

a. depends upon one's perspective
b. of course not - I don't imply that it does
c. funny
d. ??
e. perhaps inconsistent of me, but i wouldn't necessarily judge a cartoon as rising to the level of hate. We hold yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is illegal because it endangers lives. Hate speech looks like it is rooted in similar reasoning (see prev. comment).
f. not doing so puts us on the slope of anarchy

[jerry]

Here are a few of my thots. Eric, I share 'most' of the thots u initially expressed - & have often been guilty of over-reacting! Glad u recognized ur over-reaction. Not sure about arrestg Jones. Might b first step to restrictg political comments of religious leaders - like yourself. Not sure that 'name-calling' (like 'stupid' in most-recent clericeric post accomplishes anything); rather could b viewed as radical/intolerant polemic that is at minimum condescending - OR as "speech intended to denigrate, intimidate......". I'm quoting that from ur response to Jamie, above. Again, I share ur basic criticism of Jones' recent actions & statements & I appreciate u & other influential people (& ordinary ones) - world-wide - voicing disagreement w him!