“Protecting faith and freedom”
Oh no you don’t.
I’ve already said I think Rev Jones is a bad man. He’s no ally or comrade of mine. In his world I would be a lifelong domestic servant with no vote no voice no views no rights, so even without his dramatic performances, he would be no comrade of mine.
But that’s my reasoned choice; it’s not the law of the land. “Interfaith Alliance” please note.
Washington, DC – Interfaith alliance President Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy issues the following statement in response to the killings of UN Workers in Afghanistan.
…this violence is a response, unacceptable as it may be, to the burning of a Qur’an in Florida last month by a local pastor. The disrespect he has shown for the Muslim faith has now reflected on the rest of us and has led to the worst possible outcome.
We as a nation must do more to make clear that bigoted rhetoric and action against the Muslim faith will not be tolerated and does not represent what is in the hearts and minds of the majority of Americans.
Oh no we must not. We must do no such thing. What Gaddy chooses to call “bigoted rhetoric” against Islam is protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution, and even “interfaith alliances” don’t get to suppress it. We are allowed to criticize Islam, even harshly, and no interfaith boffin gets to stop us.
Next we’re coming after people who suggest ugly things about tea party ideology.
Of course, ‘bigoted rhetoric’ against the unbeliever that permeates entire canons of Islamic texts must be conveniently ignored. Of course, suicide bombings, genital mutilation, death for apostasy, stoning etc., carried out ‘in the name of Islam’, while it doesn’t reflect on its true nature, must always be either laid at the door of ‘cultural relativism’ or better yet, Western occupation (Kashmir notwithstanding). Of course. Of course. Respect is always a one-way street when it comes to Islam. You can’t even retrace your steps.
Yesterday Afghan terrorists bombed a Sufi Mosque killing 42 and wounding more than a 100. The Sufis are a peaceful sect, known for their poetry (ghazals) and music, both of which are art forms that the Taliban despise.
It is these same terrorists who are protesting in Afghanistan now, oblivious to the fact that their own actions in bombing Mosques have resulted in hundreds of burned Qurans over the years. In response to these hypocritical violent protests by these terrorists, the progressive message has been hijacked by those on the left who have limited perspective and are ruled by blind emotion, preventing a more informed liberal narrative- one that would align with the ideals of the ACLU- to emerge. In the midst of this hijacking there is an element of left-wing bigotry that goes unnoticed- the implication that ALL Afghans are barbarians and none there share our values when it comes to freedom of speech.
What all else are we supposed to say? Are there any significant mainstream (or even faux mainstream like WND) pundits endorsing Jones’ action? Are there not enough condemnations being issued? How many times do we have to say, “We all really hate Jones and wish he wasn’t doing that” before the violence-inciting mullahs in Afghanistan believe us?
The answer is it doesn’t matter how many times, because they’ll only believe us when we deliver Jones’ head on a platter. Which we won’t do, because it’s wrong. So…. Yeah, not sure what the Interfaith Alliance is going for here.
“Unacceptable”? ‘Unacceptable”? Is this turkey for real? This was unprovoked murder of complete innocents. According to reports this started as an anti US/NATO demonstration and only turned against a UN compound when the rioters couldn’t find a soft target otherwise. It was behaviour that is even against what the koran supposedly teaches. “If you kill a person it is as if you had killed all of mankind”!!
What civilized person would NOT disrespect a “religion” whose followers are capable of such barbarism? Certainly I do not respect this behaviour or the religion that provokes it. Nothing Terry Jones has done or hasn’t done has affected my opinion of Islam.
It is time people in the West stopped making excuses for muslims; stopped treating them as if they are wayward children who are not responsible for their actions; stopped bending over backwards to excuse the inexcusable. The plain fact is that if the three radical imams who spurred this riot, as part of their anti US/NATO agenda, hadn’t had this excuse they would have found another – and they yet probably will! This was just an excuse.
I thought the “bigoted rhetoric” remark was on the nose. “Will not be tolerated” is a more troublesome remark. They can be “intolerant” by loudly denouncing the action, but they can’t be “intolerant” in the sense of supressing speech.
I used to think that cultural relativist leftists who made excuses for slaughtering people because of a book-burning were made up. A right-wing myth, if you will.
I recently discovered otherwise: http://www.distantocean.com/2011/04/burn-them-all.html#comments
Plotline: (1) Leftist anti-imperialist blogger John Caruso posts bashing religion for leading to slaughter based on insult to beliefs.
(2) Commenters, notably one “QuizmasterChris,” blame the Quran-burners and (bonus!) the woman who drew cartoons, and justifies it by “cultural diversity.”
(3) My head hits the desk, repeatedly.
We need to separate respect for people from respect for ideas. Muslims are people, and the bigotry that they have faced since 9/11 in this country is deplorable and unreasonable. Whatever their religion they themselves should not have their houses vandalized, their mosques attacked, yelled and screamed at by ignorant tea partiers when they are going to charity events, denied employment, renditioned or sent to Guantamo without trial or probable cause. Muslims are individuals, and i can’t stomache them being held responsible individually for terrorism just because they are Muslims.
Islam is grounds for ridicule, examination and copies of the Quran are just as good for burning as other books. Those who follow barbaric practices such as selling their daughters for arranged marriages against their will, honor-killings, genetic mutilations, stonings and whippings for being of the wrong gender, being lashed for wearing jeans or westernised dress need to face criticism and prosecution.
The religion must be criticized and exposed; but Muslims themselves should not be subject to bigotry just for being Muslims. We are supposed to be a civilized society, after all.
I think what is required is mainstream protests against Islam. Of course, it sounds like a terrible idea right now, because such protests would be hijacked by ignorant trouble-makers. They would also be hijacked by Islamists themselves.
But there has to be leadership somewhere. The west seems void of any wise voices. If any influential figure were to begin the process of peaceful protest against Islam, they would be risking their lives. Moral relativism is now embedded into our societies and politicians, and it has resulted in a fog, where the foolish come to the defence of Islam whenever it commits an act of horror or violence.
@Sailor
The passage you are quoting is a very popular one, but allow me to employ the most popular tool in the apologist’s toolbox (reversed, that is): Putting into context.
Here is the actual passage (my boldface and italics):
5:32 For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoeverkilleth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah’s Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.
Simultaneously, what is usually omitted is the following verse (also providing oodles of context (sic))5:33 The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;
So, while I am willing to concede that many muslims may be (in this instance beneficially) misled by the truncated citation, I am not really prepared to agree that the the main impression of the quran is this benevolent against members of other beliefs. On the contrary.
I did a rather coarse tally of the first 10 sira the other day, and fond that some 15% of the verses in fact was dedicated to allah’s hatred for (and plan for eternal torture of) non-believers(of various kinds). I find it hard to believe that this attitude from the almighty should be without impression on the believer’s minds.
Cassanders
In Cod we trust
@Cassanders: yeah, I know. I was merely selectively quoting to show the inconsistencies. It is like saying that islam is “the reiigion of peace” when what is meant is that the peace of islam comes only when everybody has been converted, enslaved or murdered. Unfortunately, as you point out the koran actually does contain this horrendously violent message which, notably, has not been publicly repudiated by any muslims anywhere, as far as I know, not ebven the “liberal” ones. As long as the word of the prophet cannot be changed and is not reinterpreted by orthodox islam to not mean what it plainly means, the rest of the world has a very large problem.
@Mike: yes. I should have said we should stop making excuses for muslims when they go on the rampage, murder innocent persons or carry out other attacks in the name of islam, because islam has been “defamed” or “insulted”….
C’mon, people, this isn’t an attempt to “declare the First Amendment null and void”. The First Amendment is a limitation on government; it does not constrain the actions of private citizens. I didn’t see anything in the Alliance’s release that called upon the government to supporess speech, only a recommendation that people not use “bigoted rhetoric” (whatever that is).
While the Alliance’s position may be a bad idea, it doesn’t implicate the First Amendment.
@6…
Islam has proven itself over and over and over and over again to be a religion of intolerance, hatred, misogyny, and violence. Even the mildest, most-moderate Westernized Muslim will still acknowledge that the penalty for apostasy is death.
What is “bigoted” about pointing out the fact that the man over there is wielding a sword?
What others call bigotry, I call the “powers of accurate observation”.
Let’s take this to a different context. Is it bigoted to call a neo-Nazi a racist? I think not. One makes one’s own bed; the rest of us cannot be held responsible if the bedding is full of fleas. Oh, I’m sure there are a lot of nice, moderate neo-Nazis. Probably the guy who changed the oil in your car at the shop is one. Loves his kids, even pays his taxes, obeys all the laws except for the ones about speeding. Doesn’t matter. He’s a racist, through and through. Because of who he associates himself with.
And it is not bigotry on my part to point it out.
This “bigotry” meme is popular with precisely those people whose ideas should be anathema to a rational peaceful modern society. If someone is offended that you accurately describe them, then they claim you’re “bigoted”.
Sorry. No.
Legist,
But that’s not what you saw. Notice that you translated it, as if subconsciously, into something much milder than what the release actually says. It doesn’t say “we the Alliance recommend that people not use bigoted rhetoric.” It says what I quoted it saying:
That’s a very coercive statement. Of course they have no power to back it up, but I didn’t say they did; the coerciveness of the mere wish is noteworthy anyway.
You may think they meant the milder version you offered, but then you have to say that; it’s no good saying you saw “only” something that isn’t there.
Ms. Benson:
Aren’t you interpreting the release through your own lens, which appears to see a call for government censorship? You may think they meant the stronger version you offered in your headline, but then you should have said that. But that wouldn’t have made such a provocative headline, would it? (“We Think the Interfaith Alliance Declares the First Amendment Null and Void”)
Look, I’m just as much against politically correct attempts to curtail speech as you, but I just don’t see First Amendment issues everywhere. I posted a comment a while back on this same topic when Yale University Press was rightfully criticized for refusing to include the Mohammed cartoons in a book about the controversy involving their previous publication. As wrong as the decision was (IMHO), it was simply an editorial decision that didn’t involve the First Amendment, despite protestations to the contrary.
That’s a different headline though – it was in News, not here.
You’re right, and I do usually avoid or dispute conflation of the First Amendment with extra-legal free speech issues. Nevertheless, “will not be tolerated” does seem to imply the police hovering in the background – either that or just mob violence, which surely the Interfaith Alliance would not be invoking.