Burning the Qur'an
On this, everybody seems to agree: Pastor Terry Jones has an absolute constitutional right, a First Amendment right of free speech, to burn a pile of copies of the Qur'an, if he wants. Does he, then? This does not seem at all clear to me.
To put things into perspective, the Qur'an is even more of a holy book to Muslims than the Bible is to Christians, for the simple reason that Muslims don't express their piety in the other ways that Christians do, through realistic depictions of their savior. Christians have paintings, icons, movies, even miraculous pieces of toast, but Muslims invest all, or nearly all, their spiritual energy into their holy book. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Qur'an is ten times more important for Muslims than the Bible is for Christians, though it's probably more than that. Now factor in the timing. Tomorrow, Saturday, Pastor Jones' previously scheduled day for his Qur'an burning event, this year just happens to be the Muslim holy day of Eid ul-Fitr, which ranks somewhere in comparable importance to Christmas. So imagine a Muslim Imam undertaking to burn a stack on Bibles on Christmas, then multiply the outrage. And ask yourself: are the consequences of that outrage entirely unreasonable?
Look at Pastor Jones' past. He founded a congregation in Cologne, Germany, but in 2009 his congregation (estimated at between 800-1,000) kicked him out due to his radicalism and his hatred of Islam. There's no doubt that he's a provocateur. He knows exactly what kind of reaction a Qur'an burning event could produce.
Doesn't this situation more closely resemble yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater than it does, say, burning an American flag?
To my mind the constitutional issue is not at all clear. If Jones were to go ahead with his plan despite having said he's "suspended" it, I would prefer to see the authorities intervene to stop him, and let the courts eventually settle the appropriate boundaries for (genuine) free speech.
A footnote: Will somebody please tell Chris Matthews that the word is "Imam," with two "m"s, and not "Iman," with an "n". I'm just guessing here, but Jones was pronouncing it "Iman," and Matthews, not knowing any better, thought to imitate him.
Posted by George Kenney on September 10, 2010 1:49 PM 
« America's Heart of Darkness | Main | Technology and Dreams »
Comments
Just an important correction, George. You're quite right about the importance of the Qur'an for Muslims, it's just that the reason you give is not quite exact. The Qur'an is to Islam what Jesus Christ is to Christians: in other words, the Qur'an, like the Torah for the Jews or the Vedas for the Hindus, is identified with the substance of the Revelation itself. Exactly as the Christ is "God made man," for Christians, so the Qur'an is "God (or "Logos") made Sacred Speech" or "Book." Hence the horror with which Muslims would view such a desecration, rather the way a Christian (at least a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox) would feel if you trampled the sacramental Host afoot, or desecrated the wine — both elements being sacramental bearers of the presence of Christ, according to their doctrines.
[Well, yes, technically, which your point adds to the case, but I stand by my common sense observation. And aside from religious symbolism, thinking about the constitutional problem some more, if necessary I'd arrest Pastor Jones on grounds of incitement. g.]
Posted by: Brendan | September 11, 2010 2:29 AM
No comment seems to have been forthcoming following General Petreaus' denouncement of Pastor Jones. Political sympathies aside, what's the difference between this General's disorderly outburst regarding a US citizen's political speech and those military people who were so angry with Jane Fonda they wanted to try her for treason? When will the military brass learn (or be told by a self-respecting Commander-in-Chief) that after they say "Yes, sir" or "No, sir" they ought to keep their politics and policy views to themselves?
[Excellent point, Rich. Though it's appropriate for Secretary Gates or Secretary Clinton to weigh in. g.]
Posted by: Richard Greener | September 11, 2010 2:08 PM
Good discussion. Freedom of religion is an essential American freedom. The pastor's initiative is in this sense deeply un-American, probably unconstitutional, and therefore illegal and, as you well point out, George, an incitement. Aside from all that, it is a sign of the barbarism that has progressively affected our society over the last couple of decades.
Incidentally, a good antidote to all this is John W. Kiser's book, "Commander of the Faithful: The Life and Times of Emir Abd el-Kader (1808-1883)." To whet readers' interest, here's a comment from a retired USMC Colonel:
Posted by: Edgar Partridge | September 12, 2010 2:47 PM
Making a big hubbub over some religious fundamentalist's denigration of another religion is the only outrageous thing in the entire affair. It is hardly unusual, though, for us to devote so much attention to nutjobs like this man; it seems as if most of our discourse these days is held by such people debating two equally crazy sides of some ridiculous issue.
He can burn all the Korans he likes, and someone else can burn all the Bibles or Torahs or flags or whatnot they like. If it is offensive then tough cookies. Being occasionally offended is the price we pay for our freedoms.
As to the idea that this guy was endangering military personnel, it doesn't matter. Not only are they already in danger, but isn't the reason they are over there (purported by the very people calling foul) to "defend" us and our way of life? What use if we are required to give up the freedoms we hope to propagate?
Posted by: DPirate | September 17, 2010 6:12 AM