Beyond belief: Koran-burning called off — in exchange for moving Ground Zero mosque; Update: No deal? Update: Fred Phelps now planning to burn the Koran instead; Update: We’re not here to barter, says Rauf

The American Government’s response to the proposed Koran burning has proven that we are losing the war. Remember after 9/11 all that claims of “if we do X, the terrorists have won”? Well, if our highest elected leaders feel it is necessary to grovel in front of the world to appease Muslims and avoid offending Muslims, then the terrorist have indeed won. Their violent acts have cowed America to the point that our president will drop everything and beg an unknown pastor, of a tiny church, with few followers, to refrain from engaging in the exercise of his 1st amendment rights. And, at the same time, this same president will support building a victory mosque at ground zero.

How can we claim that the terrorists have not won? We are fast sliding into dhimmnitude. It is hard to deny that we are doing everything in our power to appease Muslims in every facet of our national life. No other group, religion, or ideology gets such treatment from the government.

People can make the claims of “we shouldn’t needlessly provoke” Muslims, or that book burning is inherently wrong – but those are merely rationalizations. When it was simply some private citizens voicing such concerns to other private citizens I agreed with it. When it becomes government policy – and they have leaned heavily on this pastor (FBI visits, calls, public statements literally claiming soldier deaths will be his fault) – it goes too far by half.

First, burning books is not inherently bad. If a government burns books, it is censorship, and is bad. When a person burns books belonging to someone else, it is theft or destruction of property and is bad. When a person burns a book in a physically dangerous way, such that they may start some other fire it is bad.

But when a person burns their own book in a safe way, it is not inherently wrong. It does not censor anything, it hurts no one, and the book – thanks to the ease and cheapness of publishing – is not in danger of disappearing. Instead it is simply symbolic and has meaning only to those who give it meaning.

Second, provocation has a long tradition in this and other countries. Muslims provoke everyone throughout the world. They threaten violence constantly. They burn and destroy other religions’ symbols as official government policy (Saudi Arabia, and other countries). They refuse religious freedom in their own countries and kill apostates in other countries. They commit terrorist acts. They refuse to assimilate (taxi cab drivers refusing to take people with bottles of alcohol or guide dogs). They provoke in many other ways (ground zero mosque).

Other religions and ideologies are constantly provoked in America (Piss Christ anyone?). Mormons support Proposition 8 in California and are called haters for following the commands of their religion. Is that not religious provocation. Muslims stone homosexuals to death and are called the religion of peace.

Conservatives cannot state an opinion without a leftist calling them fascists. Is that not unreasonable provocation? There are disgusting attack ads in politics – remember the Texas murder dragging ad that implied Bush was in favor of such things?

A large political organization – MoveOn.org – took out a full page ad in the NY Times calling General Patreaus a liar and a betrayer of his country. Was that not provocation?

Jehovah’s Witnesses regularly print and distribute tracts accusing the Catholic Church and the Pope of being in league with the devil, among other things. Is that not provocation?

To claim that we should refrain in this one instance – to protect the fragile egos of Muslims, reeks of appeasement and servitude.

To claim that we should refrain in order to avoid violence is the worst kind of appeasement. We are giving them power to further their agenda by doing what they want based on their threats of violence. Isn’t this why U.S. policy is allegedly never to negotiate with terrorists? Won’t they simply commit more violence once they realize how well their tactics are working?

It is repugnant that a U.S. General would lay blame for U.S. deaths at the feet of someone burning the Koran when they would never do the same to the NY Times printing classified materials, or the left having protests against the war and telling troops to kill their officers or go AWOL.

It is repugnant that a President would get involved with a private citizen exercising his 1st amendment rights in front of the world, when he would not do the same to protect any other religion or group from insult.

Muslims also don’t like homosexuality, women uncovered, being another religion, or Jews and the state of Israel. Should we prohibit all of these things to avoid giving Muslims offense? Where is this line drawn? What other special rights do Muslims get in this country that you and I are not worthy of?

This does not mean you have to agree with burning books, or that you have to do it. But for the Government to react as it did is outrageous and dangerous. It is placing the beliefs of Muslims against the beliefs of every other kind of American. It is making Islamic law de facto law in the U.S.

Monkeytoe on September 10, 2010 at 9:57 AM