In an ideal world, he'd get a little publicity, and some Muslims (and others) would protest and perhaps organize a non-violent response, such as burning bibles or declaring "National put a crucifix in a jar of urine day". But they would realize that this is an isolated act by a small group. And life would go on.
However, we live in a far from ideal world. Radical Muslims will gain a propaganda boost, endangering our troops and out efforts in the Middle East. The pastor should stop his plan.
I'm pleased that many prominent Americans have denounced the stunt. But how about the most prominent American, President Obama? Why hasn't he given a speech saying that he, like the overwhelming majority of Americans, disapproves of the stunt? Actually, I just noticed, looks like he has started. Good. He should also explain to foreigners that American is a free society where such stunts are Constitutionally protected. I would like to see Bush joining in too.
My friend Ray has some different thoughts. I really have to say that I disagree with his post on many points.
India is NOT Hindustan. Maybe Pakistanis perceive it that way, but they are wrong.
If the natural assumption of those overseas is that the government should stop the stunt, that's exactly why Obama should explain that America is different, and the stunt is protected free speech.
"The local cops should arrest this guy, if he burns a Koran, and he should be prosecuted. The reasons for doing this is that it is the only way for the US government to distance itself from Koran burning in the eyes of leaders of other states."No. Unless the pastor shouts fire in a crowded theatre or calls for the violent overthrow of the US government, what he's doing is clearly free speech. Stupid free speech, but free speech. People overseas should get used to it, and again, Obama should explain that. If Ray doesn't want to defend the free speech right of stupid idiots that he opposes, his concept of free speech is meaningless.
As for Bush declaring a "Crusade", yes, he used that word once and meant it in the meaning "this is a good thing, like Ike's Crusade in Europe". It was a stupid mistake, historically tone-deaf. Ray claims we acted remarkably like a Crusade - just how? Very few Americans think we are on some Crusade to retake Jerusalem or protect pilgrim's rights in the Holy Land.
Frankly, for Ray to harp on the Crusade term incites angst amongst Muslims and offers recruiting benefits to our enemies. Just like the stupid Koran burning.
2 comments:
Hi,
A few points:
India's name in Hindi is Hindustan. This is a fact, that you can look up. All I said was that a country named after a religion, and though I didn't say this has a party that believes in "Hindutva" might have a hard time understanding US attitudes toward church and stated.
There are a fairly large number of Americans who took the AQ jhas as war against them as Christians. I am on less firm ground here than when I said that India is called in Hindi, but this seems safe enough.
The analogy with the Fourth Crusade goes as follows:
A lot of Europeans favored a crusade immediately before the Fourth Crusade, a lot of Americans (point above) favored a Crusade in response to 9/.
2. The Fourth Crusade was diverted from its target in the Holy Land by the Venetians, who wanted to be paid for the use of their ships. The US attack on OBL was diverted into an attack on Iraq, because iraq had oil which the US wanted to secure access to. This claim about the attack on Iraq is probably the most EU theory of the Iraq war, so it i reasonable.
3. Therefore, the US attack on Iraq was close eough in motivation to the reason for the diversion of the Fourth Crusade to Constantinople to make them comparable.
The comparison to the Fourth Crusade is not any closer than that, but that is close enough to make it useful The idea is to suggest that the US has a substantial constituency for things that the rest of the world finds totally unacceptable. ne of these things is likely to be burning Korans.
My readership doest include a few Pakistanis. Not many and they are mostly pro-US. They're likely to be pretty alienated by the Koran Burning, which was covered in two stories in Daw the day after I posted my account.
I also have a few Indian readers, who are probably welcoming this Koran burning because it may drive a wedge between Pakistan and the US,
I also have a few American readers. My point was to suggest to these readers that the currently popular media line in the US, that the Koran burners are kooks, may not be the only way to view the issue.
It is obvious that you don't agree with my position. With luck, yur position that the guy who wants to burn Korans is in effect a lone nut will be closer to the truth than my interpretation that he is the cutting edge of a treand on the US right.
Good luck,
Ray,
India has the third most Muslims in the world. Whatever their name, they are not a "Hindu-Stan"
>There are a fairly large number >of Americans who took the AQ as >war against them as Christians.
Name some. Since a primary goal of the Islamic extremists is to destroy Israel, your claim seems strange.
The historical Crusade was launched to permanently retake the Holy Land for the Christians, with promises of Salvation to any who died in it. We are not using any such rhetoric regarding the war on terror. In fact, it is AQ who is using such rhetoric.
In my strong opinion, we did not attack Iraq primarily to loot their oil. If that was our purpose, we did a complete screwup job of it, since most of the contracts are going to non-US companies.
Post a Comment