SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Koran Burning is Very Wrong. The Koran Burning is not...

JONATHAN CHAIT SEPTEMBER 8, 2010

The Koran Burning is Very Wrong. The Koran Burning is not THE END OF CIVILIZATION.

BY ISAAC CHOTINER

[Guest Post by Isaac Chotiner]

Considering the ever-increasing amount of anti-Muslim paranoia and bigotry, it is essential that opponents of such sinister nonsense focus on actual examples of discrimination and violence. Alas, the brouhaha over the Koran burning seems to have obscured existing problems in American society. Of course burning Korans is damaging and hateful, and of course it is worth condemning the idiots who are threatening to do so. Then there is this, from Associate professor Muqtedar Khan, in The Washington Post:

The act will scorch Muslim hearts everywhere. The searing pain will never be forgotten.

Really? The pain of Koran burnings will never be forgotten? If this self-pity weren't silly enough, Khan goes on to say:

I would rather burn in fire myself, than watch a Quran burn. I am amazed at how millions of Americans who are decent and honorable can watch this happen.

The reactionary note gets louder when Khan adds:

No matter how ugly the act the Constitution permits this, is not an acceptable excuse. The Constitution does not permit this. The Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment. For Muslims this is worse than torture.

Khan should speak for himself and not pretend to know what other Muslims (including other Muslims who have, over the past decade, actually been tortured) are feeling. Burning Korans is insanely dumb and offensive, but being offended is part of living in a free society. If thirty dolts can really inflame people enough that American soldiers will be put at risk, then the blame still lies with the people actually committing acts of violence. The reaction of Khan and others to this potential incident only exacerbates  a disconcerting and depressing moment in American life.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 59 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

59 comments

He's just giving ammunition to people who claim that Islam isn't compatible with free speech. It's amazing he doesn't realize that.

- Simon Greenwood

September 8, 2010 at 2:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The article's rather pathetic. Nevertheless, the book burning is atrocious. Not to get all Godwin's law, but book burning used to be something we all felt was beyond the pale. I mean, the Nazi's pulled this crap. Did anyone at that church watch Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and say, "Me too!" ?!?!?!?

- Crock1701

September 8, 2010 at 2:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Issue #1 - the Constitution does not allow for burning a Koran. The Constitution allows for the free expression of people, some of whom may wish to burn things. If the burning of a US flag is protected as such an expression then a Koran is fair game. Nazis can march, God can hate fags, etc. etc. We all can identify hateful things others have said about us or our social group. Deal with it, it's the grand bargain of living in America. The same Constitutional protection that guarentee free exercise of religion for Muslims & other mainstream religions in America allows it for this group in Florida. It is often said that freedom is not free; well, one's own freedom of worship & expression has a cost, allowing others the same freedom even when it offends or disgusts us.

- markentel

September 8, 2010 at 2:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Sinister nonsense..." Great writing. I think all we can do is weather this. I am so impressed that the asectic, silent, disciplined General Patreus came out swinging on this. He knows that his personal gravitas and position have a chance of counteracting this sinister nonsense. Bless him.

- WandreyCer

September 8, 2010 at 2:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

WandreyCer, We have to weather it through the November elections. Then there will be a lull, and we'll start all over again in approximately December 2011.

- W_Bombay

September 8, 2010 at 4:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why is the exercise of free speech as expressed in the burning of anything by any American citizen "sinister nonsense"? Strange alliance between the far left secularists and the far right Islamists. Muslims need to stop being hyper-sensitive, and intolerant.

- K2K

September 8, 2010 at 4:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ah, so K2K doesn't think a ritual burning of a major world religion's holy book is "sinister nonsense." How would you characterize the burning of Korans, K2K? Choose a descriptor to go with your "exercise of free speech" from this list, or provide your own: "the right thing to do" "a wise and prudent move" "good old-fashioned common sense" "a fun time at the fair" "coffee break" One of those? And finally, while I have grown to hate the old "imagine the uproar if this happened to B instead of A" sawhorse ... would holding a public ceremony to burn a stack of Bibles strike you as "sinister nonsense"?

- W_Bombay

September 8, 2010 at 4:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The right of free speech doesn't involve the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. As someone has said, this Koran-burning is equivalent to "Fire!"; Afghanistan is a crowded theater; and the audience is made up of American, Canadian, and other soldiers.

- ironyroad

September 8, 2010 at 5:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just to be contrarian but why not have a book burning of all religious texts? Thereby proving, at least for a brief period of time, that the book itself is not the content. I can go out and buy a new Torah, KJV Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, or Book of Urantia if it is burned by some asshat. The act doesn't negate the text nor the words. Is the ritualistic burning of all of these sacred texts be sinister? As a society we agree that it is so, as we agree that book burning is a symbolic act of trying to negate the text. As an agnostic I would consider burning Lolita or Naked Lunch to be just as sinister only because I get greater reading pleasure from them. Having said that. I think the burning of another's religious text as a sign of rejection / protest is asinine. The act of burning doesn't negate Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism, Scientology, or even being a Jedi. It's just a way to be insulting. The pastor that organized this burning is asinine. The people that attend the event are asinine. The worst thing we can do is to fan the flames by giving it greater symbolic weight than it deserves. But don't count on the media "blacking" out the news that day. And K2K is correct, the hyper-sensitivity expressed by Khan borders on silly. If the faith of person is precariously perched upon the physical presence of a book then it speaks volumes about the precarious nature of that person's faith. And why is one persons sensitivity greater than another? It isn't a question of who was first, it's just a question of being respectful towards your fellow human being. Even if you don't see eye to eye spiritually.

- singlspeed

September 8, 2010 at 6:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Burning the koran is a fabulously stupid and bad idea. So are the perennial KKK rallies here there and everywhere. They're stupid and bigoted and morally wrong. But people have the right to be all of those things. I don't get how "free speech" and sinister are incompatible. That's just silly. K2K, you're usually clearer than this. Muslims have the right to be offended by this. I have the right to be offended by KKK rallies. We each have the right to call such things sinister. Or is free speech solely the province of white christians? More than anything, I'm annoyed that anyone covered this story. Why give that idiot, Jones, any publicity whatsoever?

- miceelf

September 8, 2010 at 9:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

sinister as adjective: suggesting evil: threatening or suggesting malevolence. Is it "sinister nonsense" when Muslims murder indigenous Christians for being Christian? or murder Muslims for converting to Christianity because murder is the Sharia remedy for leaving Islam? Happens every day in Muslim majority countries. They do not need a reason to murder anyone who is not Muslim. The media barely notices. The media should not hype what a small church in Florida is doing. The media should do their job and focus on what is truly evil, like the Hamas murder of Avishai Schindler, Kochava Even-Haim, and Talia and Yitzhak Ames on Highway 60 in the Hebron Hills on August 31, 2010. Talia Ames was nine months pregnant, but the Hamas butchers dragged her out of the car with the others, and shot all of them, again and again, at close range. Instead, the NYT practically blamed them for being murdered because they were "settlers''. There is something truly wrong with this world. The only reason the Florida church should re-think their Koran burning is out of consideration for the safety of the millions of Christians who are still trapped in Muslim majority countries.

- K2K

September 9, 2010 at 12:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If it is so unsafe for American and NATO troops to be in Muslim countries that a small church in Florida threatens to create a massacre, then it is time to give up and concede to the world of Islam. The Afghans were burning Obama in effigy, hanging from a rope, a few months ago, along with burning the American flag. Obviously some people like to burn things in protest and anger.

- K2K

September 9, 2010 at 12:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Happens every day in Muslim majority countries" Let's see some evidence that you didn't just make this 'fact' up

- Simon Greenwood

September 9, 2010 at 12:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

yadda yadda hate hate hate K2K, I feel slimed just reading you today. Better: L'Shana Tova to all who celebrate!

- WandreyCer

September 9, 2010 at 6:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am not an agnostic and I say singlespeed has it cold. If one is invested in some sort of magical totem then that capitol is tragically misspent. God, by very definition, is not a thing. Eloquently outlined by the first and second Commandments. God is the ultimate iconoclast.

- jacko

September 9, 2010 at 7:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ah, the children in Africa argument from K2K. As long as one can find someone else doing something worse, then what one is doing isn't at all wrong. yes, the treatment of christians and christian converts in many Muslim countries is evil. That doesn't at all mean that Dickhead Jones isn't evil. I had a friend who was mugged and beaten very badly in the mugging (broken ribs, broken hip, broken teeth). I am sure he'll be comforted to learn that the guys who did that to him weren't bad people because in Iran they stone women to death for adultery.

- miceelf

September 9, 2010 at 7:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mice. You pull the same all the time. Your interchangeability of Individual and Collective suits your sensibilities and the arguments you put forth. You are right in one regard.... If Dickhead Jones is burning the Koran out of self righteous malice then that is his sin.

- jacko

September 9, 2010 at 7:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My interchangeability of what, now? What other reason would Jones have? I basically agree with you, jacko, in terms of the sacredness of books. But then, I find a lot of superstitious stuff odd- the supposed sanctity of dead bodies and of buildings (witness the sacred ground arguments around ground zero). Still, I don' see any benefit in trampling on other people's sensibilities. I believe that once someone is dead, their bodies are so much discarded organic matter. But that belief doesn't entitle me to go into funerals and urinate on the body of the departed. Irrational or not, it would cause their loved ones pain, and for no particular reason. That would be a wrong thing for me to do.

- miceelf

September 9, 2010 at 8:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

awesome Jacko. Any religious document is man-made and the physical realm is not God.

- WandreyCer

September 9, 2010 at 9:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

micelf too - the discussion between you and Jack is as close to my feelings on this as I've ever seen in print. Thank goodness two much better writers than I finally nailed it for me. THANKS.

- WandreyCer

September 9, 2010 at 9:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh come, now. You should admit that you have a special place for what you see as Christian ignorance. Especially of the American variety. You happily attribute the most cynical value to Christianity in Collective. You seem unwilling to do the same for Islam. Even in the face of demonstrated dangerous and unapologetic demagogy. You seem to think that Christian ignorance is somehow special. I've got news for you..... it is of the very same tedious and tireless flavor that has a very democratic character ever thus. Pissing on the dead would qualify for inclusion. I really hesitate to even talk with you because your arguments ultimately turn to a flagellation of sorts. Ignorance is ignorance..... and ever the twain shall meet.

- jacko

September 9, 2010 at 9:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I should have addressed my previous post to mice.

- jacko

September 9, 2010 at 9:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ah Wandrey.... it's a big discussion, realms and such. One might contend that the physical is the outcome of spiritual. Yea or nay. Heaven or Hell. Manifest action and all.

- jacko

September 9, 2010 at 9:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I always wondered why we even had to do the physical thing if all we're supposed to do is evolve out of it, why not just stay in spirit in the first place. I just can't blame poor old Adam for that. I'll have to take that one up with the big guy/gal some day.

- WandreyCer

September 9, 2010 at 10:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

anyone who argues that the Constitution is the SOLE criteria for the mosque at 45 Park Place and any opposition is solely bigotry is a hypocrite if they do not also cite the Constitution as the SOLE criteria for burning books as protest. Hypocrisy. WandreyCer: "yadda yadda hate hate hate K2K, I feel slimed just reading you today." FINALLY, reciprocity about feelings. Now you know how every one of your comments on makes ME feel. I criticize the way the media decides what is news, and that makes me a TNR leper? America is doomed if THIS is what passes for "literate intellectuals" including those so lazy they always insist on "evidence" from a comment that irritates them, a twisted way of attacking the messenger.

- K2K

September 9, 2010 at 10:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Snore.

- WandreyCer

September 9, 2010 at 11:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wandrey. I think maybe one might give a sympathetic nod to the idea that we are also to evolve into the physical. One commensurate and compensates the other. You know... the yin yang....on Earth as it is in Heaven.... kind of thing.

- jacko

September 9, 2010 at 11:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Personally I think K2K some solid points.

- jacko

September 9, 2010 at 11:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm sorry K2K, but I have to leave town Friday because I'm afraid of the effheads that have been ignited by this meaningless fracas and I'm bitter about it. Not once in the last nine years have I left on 9/11. Ray Kelly and the NYPD have enough on their hands without the redneck hate patrol threatening and attacking my friends on the subway - just adding to the misery. Happy New Year K2K - take yourself out for a nice walk or something. I agree with you about the media as you know and American probably is doomed. But I simply not seen you make one concrete or even convincing argument that is not bigotry dressed up in self-congratulatory strawmen - and the intensity only got stronger, the strawmen falling away more and more. You don't want this built because of the religion of the people building it, period. That's bigotry. Everyone who has ever made such a decision always feels entitled to it, always feels that only they really have the right to hate someone for their religion. I often don't blame Jewish people to be honest. I'm not Jewish, how would I know what it feels like to have entire governments gunning for me? And thats just THIS generation, try throughout history. Jews have a much higher hurdle to cross in most things and especially in not resenting or even hating Islam. Standing up to what I see as bigotry - all bigotry - was how I was raised, it is MY religion. I read my Hannah Arendt too and mob mentality is something we all need to stand up to, not join. Every. Single. Time. God is a hard ass K2K, no angels, no white light etc. It only matters when the test is hard, and this is your test. You're up.

- WandreyCer

September 9, 2010 at 11:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

OK Jacko. I just don't. But then I'm not Jewish, I concede that. I really do. Happy New Year and I'm sorry for my irritation and rudeness K2K. This has affected people I know personally, I have seen the tears and its tough. 9/11 is always hightens emotions too. I respect you all and again, in the spirit of the New Year - peace.

- WandreyCer

September 9, 2010 at 11:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jacko, I for one don't reserve a special place in my heart for Christianity-hating. I hate all religion. Islam might be the worst of the bunch. But K2K, it's a declaration of war to ritualistically destroy that which other people regard as sacred. It's hate speech. It's evil, nasty shit, and you know that. What if a mob of antisemitic Muslims got the biggest, prettiest Torah they could find in order to destroy it in the public square? Do you think "sinister" would be too strong a word to describe that behavior?

- JakeH

September 9, 2010 at 12:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jacko, I honestly don't get it. pissing on the dead would qualify for inclusion in what? I actually don't criticise christianity in the collective. I am a Christian- by choice, so clearly I have my own ideas as to what is the best path, for me at least.. I criticize a lot of individual christians. I have seen a lot of Christian failings up close and personal. I have my own sacred cows, and I know it. I don't see why I should be any more disrespectful of others' than I would want them to be of my own. As I said, I WOULDN'T piss on the dead. I wouldn't burn anyone's sacred book, unless I wanted a fight with them (if Fred Phelps had a book, I would probably piss on it).

- miceelf

September 9, 2010 at 12:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

wandreycer: If you had read any of my comments in the other 20 (?) TNR threads, you would not be so quick to condemn me solely as a bigot, although those of you who cling solely to the First Amendment to shut down all other debate seem to find comfort in a sole argument of bigotry for the 70% of us who have about a dozen reasons for opposition to the location. From the beginning, my sole opposition was (and still is) the architectural concept for Park51. My primary opposition is now based on what I have learned of the two men who built 45 PP in 1858, Paul Spofford & Thomas Tileston, e.g. historic preservation (spare me a response about how the LPC works - I used to part of the preservationistas). Because you do not even understand my comments you claim to have read, based on your responses, I find no solace in your false apology. To be blunt, I have a real problem with tax cheats, Medicaid fraud, auto insurance fraud, and abusive landlords of ALL and NO religion. I find it offensive that a few Muslims are abusing the First Amendment to scam-and-spin America and New York by including a "prayer space" for Muslims of no specific sect or existing congregation, and then publicly whining about how they are persecuted by radical bigots, all enabled by a media that has forgotten what journalists do. Rauf has no formal training as an Imam. He has no standing as a representative of American Muslims. He cares more about his Lexus and his Prada suits than anything. He probably married Daisy to use her lease for her West 85th Street apartment to scam the IRS by getting official "church status", for 800 ft2 in use both as a primary residence and as a mosque for 500 people to pray five times a day. A terrific way to avoid even having to file ANY Federal and state income tax returns. Everyone claiming a home office should create a church in their living room. No wonder so many Islamic clerics overseas (and in NYC) are opposed to Rauf's "vision", which is all about Rauf, not about anything else. Now that the primary investor Elzanaty is saying he wants to flip the property, hopefully Rauf will consider opening his interfaith bridge building center somewhere it is needed. My recommendation is Gaza, where the legal penalty for being a Christian is death by crucifixion. Then the Muslims of New York City can go back to living in peace with their neighbors.

- K2K

September 9, 2010 at 12:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

JakeH: my issue was with using "sinister" and "nonsense" together. no need to make a mountain out of a molehill just to pick another fight with me. If one marginal preacher believes Islam is a false religion, then he has every right under the Constitution to burn the Koran. Just like the Mosque at Ground Zero is protected by the Constitution. Neither is good citizenship, or the voluntary decency that maintains community, but if you claim the Constitution in one case, it is hypocrisy to deny it in the other. The ACLU would agree with that. I find it very disturbing that the preacher in Gainesville does not realize the repercussions against the millions of indigenous Christians living in Muslim-majority countries where it takes nothing but a rumor for the Muslims to go postal against their Christian neighbors on any given day. It is equally disturbing that Obama made his statement of condemnation by solely citing the risk to American and NATO troops, ignoring the indigenous Christians, and also for failing to condemn the media for making something that has not actually happened into an international crisis. Muslims actively desecrate anything Jewish. In one glaring example, Iraqi antiquities authorities have been actually erasing all Hebrew inscriptions from the actual tomb of the prophet Ezekiel: "Iraq wants to turn ancient Jewish tomb into mosque" "Israeli professor informed Iraqi authorities engaged in erasing Jewish characteristics off Prophet Ezekiel's tomb located south of Baghdad" Smadar Peri Published: 01.18.10, 15:04 "Some 2,500 years ago the prophet Ezekiel presented his Prophecy of Dry Bones, which according to various interpretations hailed the salvation of the Jewish people. According to recent reports, Iraq is currently trying to remove the Jewish traces from the prophet's tomb and turn it into a mosque. Ezekiel the Prophet, whose prophesy was recorded in the Book of Ezekiel, lived in Babylon at the time of Solomon's temple. Tradition has it that he is buried in the village of Al Kilf, south of Baghdad, and followers of the three monotheistic religions continue to visit his tomb to this day. "I received information from a senior Iraqi scholar pertaining to the local authorities' intention of turning the tomb into a mosque under the guise of 'preservation' of the holy site," says Professor Shmuel Morre, former head of the Arabic Language and Literature Department in the Hebrew University. "The man who provided me with the information stressed that the Iraqi antiquities department has been under heavy pressure to erase any proof of the Jews' connection to Iraq," he notes. Iraq also contains the tombs of the Ezra the Scribe, the Prophet Jonah and King Zedekiah. According to Prof. Morre, who himself was born in Iraq, his colleague informed him that local authorities have already began erasing Hebrew inscriptions off Ezekiel's tomb in order to turn the site into a mosque. For hundreds of years the tomb has been under the care of leaders of the Jewish community in Iraq. Currently the country contains only eight Jews. The rest have become Muslim or are in hiding for fear of being murdered by terrorists upon embarking on a Jewish pilgrimage. Manager of the "Justice for Jews" organization Shlomo Alfassa has approached US government authorities in Washington following the reports and demanded to "stop the Islamization of the Jewish prophet's tomb." An application has also been made to the UNESCO headquarters, which is responsible for maintaining the religious character of holy sites." http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3832780,00.html Not like that story gets any coverage in Western media...

- K2K

September 9, 2010 at 1:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Mainstream" Islam, as practiced in most places around the world, is hostile to women's rights, gay rights, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, demands a role in government and is prone to a violent militancy when challenged on nearly any issue. Mainstream liberalism, as practiced in the west, supports women's rights, gay rights, freedom of expression and religion, is fairly virulent in support of church/state separation, generally abhors violence and is quite often harshly critical and willing to satirize Judeo-Christian religion. So can someone explain to me WHY the left works so hard to both plead the case for Islam and refuse to criticize it? Where are the women's and gay rights groups and why are they so quiet? There's certainly no limit on the criticism of Christian groups opposed to the gay marriage issue, for example. And it's not as if the left has been showing favoritism for only "reform" Islam or Islamic movements supportive of the aforementioned groups and their rights, they seem willing to jump in an support the strictest and most fundamentalist Islamic organizations without any kind of litmus tests. What drives this?

- mobocracy

September 9, 2010 at 1:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Apparently some comments associate Isaac Chotiner with "far left secularists." Furthermore, he's formed a "strange alliance" with "far right Islamists." I don't know if that is hyperbole or some form of subversive humor. Everyone is arguing but no one seems to disagree with this post. "Man plans to exercise free speech rights. Man plans to do something stupid and offensive. This is a country where folks are allowed to say stupid and offensive things. Get over it. Muslims need to get over it too."

- Sancho

September 9, 2010 at 2:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sancho, people are upset whenever someone is not sufficiently hateful toward Muslims. Once you learn this about some TNR comments sections, it will make everything easy to understand.

- miceelf

September 9, 2010 at 3:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Could we please stop larding the discussion of what's appropriate to resolve controversies over religious rights and free speech rights in the United States with examples plucked from every religious dictatorship across the globe? It does nothing for the quality of the arguments it's supposed to help, and gives me a rash in a private place! What they do or don't do in some other godforsaken place has very little to do with how we go about our business, and certainly doesn't constitute a measure by which our actions can be evaluated. That is quite different from comparing, say, health coverage systems in Europe and the U.S., as that is talking about specific public policy to pragmatic ends, not constitutional rights and conflicts over their limits.

- ironyroad

September 9, 2010 at 3:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mobocracy describes some of the fundamental differences between liberal beliefs and values versus Muslim beliefs and values, and then asks: "can someone explain to me WHY the left works so hard to both plead the case for Islam and refuse to criticize it?" My answer: I think you are unfairly conflating two distinct phenomena, Mobocracy. Liberals are ALWAYS inclined to support the downtrodden, minorities of race or religion (or some other way of being a minority), the marginalized, those suffering prejudice . . . to put it bluntly, liberals are naturally inclined to stand behind the underdog, whomever that 'dog might be. The only reason why it appears that liberals are backing Muslims (regardless of how illiberal those Muslims are), is because it is the Muslims that are currently the primary victims of racist xenophobic prejudice in the USA. Liberals actually BELIEVE the words of the Bill of Rights, as compared to righties (who only support applications of the Constitution that benefit "their side", rejecting Constitutional analysis that leads to disfavored conclusions). Thus, when Muslims are being wronged (and is there really any doubt that the far-right in the USA is currenlty wronging Muslim citizens and residents?), it is the liberals who stand up for them . . . as we do for ANY group that is being wronged. At least, that the principle. There are exceptions (like, for example, where is all the liberal support for us beleaguered smokers??)

- dsimon64

September 9, 2010 at 4:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I knew it was only a matter of time before all the "constitutional fundamentalists" in the matter of the mosque would suddenly become constitutional relativists when the shoe is on the other foot. Sensitivities were completely not relevant in that case. Sensitivities are absolutely to be counted in this case. The problem with Muslims is that they suffer from a sense of entitlement. They actually believe that they have a prior right as Muslims to impose their offended feelings upon others. They just don't get it. If they would, they could learn something from Jewish experience. But then, it is in the nature of Islamic contempt for Jews that it forbids them to learn anything from those "slaves". (This is how one Arab commenter from Abu-Dhabi referred to Jews. He also called Neda "garbage". And he is actually one of those, you know, moderate Muslims. Quite charming and very polite, in his own way). I'm quoting from my comment on Wieseltier's post: There is something very strange about the attempt to pass the Muslim minorities as vulnerable, powerless, totally innocent. I watched Imam Rauf yesterday on CNN explaining how he cannot withdraw the Cordova Mosque to another location because it will trigger a violent reaction among "exremists" in the Muslim world. I've seen this morning the entire American administration beseeching a totally negligible religious crazy to not burn Islamic scriptures because the act will trigger wrath and violence in the Muslim world. One Imam was quoted as saying that even if one human being is killed somewhere as a result of the violence that will surely ensue, it's the book burners who are directly responsible (and by inference, those who wouldn't stop them); not the putative Muslim murderers but the book burners and the American system. It would seem that, contrary to the impression of helpless vulnerability, Muslim minorities can tap into great numbers and resources of support whenever it only appears that their wishes are thwarted. So relocating a mosque will incite mass violence, according to Rauf. Burning Qurans will incite violence, according to that other Imam. How long before something else will incite violence? How did Jews react when Muslims burned down an ancient synagogue in Jericho? Or a sacred place of worship near Nablus? Or used tombstones from Jewish cemeteries for paving their doorsteps, Or used the Western Wall as a garbage dump? Or burnt the Jewish quarter of Aleppo, including all its synagogues and Torah scrolls?

- noga1

September 9, 2010 at 7:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"On the plan to burn Qurans this weekend, I say to Muslims: Let's get over the symbolic insult and deal with the very real issues of literal interpretations of the Quran that are used to sanction domestic violence, terrorism, militancy, and suicide bombings in the name of Islam. Gen. David Petraeus has weighed in, saying that the planned burnings by the Rev. Terry Jones' congregation in Florida will endanger U.S. soldiers fighting in Afghanistan. But I believe that there is something that endangers Americans and American soldiers even more: certain passages that—when read literally—pit Muslims against Americans and the West. We, as Muslims, need to tear a few pages out of the Quran. I believe the Qurans are being burnt because we, as Muslims, haven't dealt sincerely and intellectually with very serious issues that certain Quranic passages raise, particularly in the West. These include verses—when literally read—that say that disobedient wives can be beaten “lightly,” that Muslims can't be friends with the Jews and the Christians, and that it's OK to kill converts from Islam" http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-09-08/get-over-the-quran-burning/

- noga1

September 9, 2010 at 7:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"shoe is on the other foot" Oh, bollocks. If you can't tell the difference between building a place of worship for one's own group, and desecrating some other group's holy materials, there's really no point. But Most people here said that Jones had the right to do whatever stupid thing he wanted to do. We just think that he's doing the wrong thing. I'm not protesting outside of his church or urinating on a random church floor, or stabbing a Christian cabby. No one else here is either.

- miceelf

September 9, 2010 at 9:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

it is hypocritical to dismiss as bigots those who believe some of the ashes of the 1,000 still missing from the incineration of the fireballs of 9/11 are in 45 Park Place, who see sacred ground, a cemetery; while also describing the Koran as "holy material". words on paper that are holy to some, but not to most. There are more Animists in the world than Muslims. Both the whatever-mosque and the crazy preacher are protected by the Constitution; both creating unnecessary pain and controversy, both are self-absorbed attention-getting men. However, it is always the Muslims whose feelings come first lest they start killing infidels in retaliation. Maybe Islam needs to rethink that ban on alcohol, or invent a sport to work off all that sensitivity. I am sure the rest of the world would be ecstatic if Muslims could channel all their intolerance into drunken fans at soccer matches instead of beheadings, IEDs and suicide bombers. And the media should rethink why they create controversy in the way they decide what is 'news'. irony: I hope you are reading the 9/13/2010 issue of The New Yorker. The profile of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed by Terry McDermott (only available in print) explains why Murfreesboro is having their mosque controversy. As for me, I am seeing too many parallels between the life experience of KSM and Faisal Rauf, which is explaining quite a bit about the fake Imam.

- K2K

September 9, 2010 at 9:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

some of the ashes of the 1000 still missing are all over the area around ground zero, the strip clubs, the dollar stores, etc. Anyone who has protested both the mosque and the strip club with the same vehemence, I will not call a bigot. But that's a very small set of people. Agree with the media issue. As Chris Matthews noted, it appears that all one has to do to get on national tv and get all the attention one wants is to threaten to burn a koran. As I said earlier, he should have been ignored.

- miceelf

September 9, 2010 at 9:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K is blinded by false parallels. A "sacred ground" in New York precludes a mosque a few blocks near the site of "9/11" while some people see it unnecessary, stupid, offensive, and completely lawful that someone plans to burn a few Korans. What are we arguing about?

- Sancho

September 9, 2010 at 10:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"But Most people here said that Jones had the right to do whatever stupid thing he wanted to do. We just think that he's doing the wrong thing." All people here said that Imam Rauf had the right to do whatever stupid thing he wanted to do. We just think that he's doing the wrong thing. "I'm not protesting outside of his church or urinating on a random church floor, or stabbing a Christian cabby. No one else here is either." You don't need to protest. The president is doing it for you. You can't get any greater support than that. Has any cabbie been stabbed because of the mosque? I haven't heard about it.

- noga1

September 9, 2010 at 10:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I guess noga1 agrees with Chotiner's post. People who comment here seem unable to stay on topic.

- Sancho

September 9, 2010 at 11:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And as if on cue: "Thousands of protesters have taken to the streets across Afghanistan over plans, now on hold, by a small Florida church to burn copies of the Koran. Three people were shot when a protest near a Nato base in the north-east of the country turned violent. President Hamid Karzai said the stunt had been an insult to Islam, while Indonesia's president said it threatened world peace. Pastor Terry Jones told US breakfast TV he currently had no plans to do it. " http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11258739 What do you make of this pre-emptive revenge for offended feelings to an event that hasn't even happened yet?

- noga1

September 10, 2010 at 8:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Imam Rauf's advice to minorities: Don't be "socially provocative". And to his Muslim brothers and sisters: "we do not own Islam but Islam owns us. We do not own Allah. Allah owns us." Very reassuring. ___________________ "To live harmoniously in that competition requires everyone to understand the consequences of their actions. My message to the Christian community in Malaysia is that using the word Allah to mean the Christian God may be theologically and legally correct, but in the context of Malaysia, it is socially provocative. If you want to have influence with people in Malaysia, you must find a way to convey your message without provoking this kind of response. If you want to reach the Malays, then use the Malay word for God, which is Tuhan. At the same time, I urge the Malays to act in accordance with the ethical values of Islam. You must recognise that we do not own Islam but Islam owns us. We do not own Allah. Allah owns us. We live in a globalised era where events in Malaysia have consequences around the world. Some people in Christian-majority countries will see Muslims mistreating Christian minorities and use that to justify mistreating Muslim minorities in their countries." http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/1/13/focus/5458409&sec=focus ______________ To recapitulate: My message to the Muslim community in America is that building a mosque next to GZ may be constitutionally and legally correct, but in the context of America, it is socially provocative. If you want to have influence with people in America, you must find a way to convey your message without provoking this kind of response. (H/T: K2K)

- noga1

September 10, 2010 at 8:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think the two things I find most appalling about the discussion of the burning of copies of the Koran are the excessive vehemence of some offended Muslims (today I read of actual violence in Afghanistan in response to the threat of Koran burning), and - on the other hand - the focus on military considerations among some Americans (as if insulting American Muslims by burning the symbols of their faith is not a sufficient reason for Christians to exercise some restraint). I think Gail Collins, whose piece in the NY Times suggests we not take too seriously the crazy 5% of Americans who are always doing something ridiculous and even repulsive, misses the point. We live among a Christian majority who are typically insensitive, even hostile, to Mormons, Muslims, atheists and others. It goes beyond the fringe 5%. In a pluralistic society that embraces freedom of religion as part of its core traditional values, the members of the majority faith have a responsibility to exercise some restraint out of consideration for their neighbors. This would imply a decent regard for the feelings of American Muslims confronted by the threatened sacrilege of burning Korans. Isaac compares the burning of books, even sacred texts, to torture and finds the book-burning to be a lesser crime. He misses the point. Michael Bloomberg is also correct - the burning of Korans is constitutionally protected. Also misses the point. Do we want to be an America where majorities express their contempt for minorities, burning their religious symbols and shouting down their religious assemblies and practices? Who will be next? What minority will follow the Muslims? What makes you so sure we would stop before it got to torture? Who, other than Muslims, have we subjected to torture? As an atheist living in a nation where 80+% claim to be Christians, I would very much like to see less bullying from the members of the majority religion. Neil

- purcellneil

September 10, 2010 at 1:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The only reason why it appears that liberals are backing Muslims (regardless of how illiberal those Muslims are), is because it is the Muslims that are currently the primary victims of racist xenophobic prejudice in the USA. dsimon64, what race is Islam again? Arabic? Persian? Black? Perhaps the catch-all Asian? Or is it a new race? In my opinion, liberals are taking the Islamic side in these situations primarily as part of the knee-jerk support of anyone or anything anti-Western. The fact that the race card is getting brought out is usually a sign of the lack of intellectual effort put into their support of or opposition to an issue; it's the intellectual version of a hand grenade tossed into a room. I'll grant you that Muslims worldwide are overwhelmingly not Caucasians, but that only leads to a fascinating question: What kind of support would a group of white, anti-gay, anti-female secularists get if a group of non-white protesters decided to burn something they considered sacred? My guess is none, since this would largely be tantamount to MoveOn backing Jerry Falwell.

- mobocracy

September 10, 2010 at 1:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"My guess is none, since this would largely be tantamount to MoveOn backing Jerry Falwell." That's funny. The same idea of the inadvertent alliances these recent events have conjured up has been discussed by Ben Cohen, here: http://propagandistmag.com/2010/09/10/911-spectacle "I say that because you might draw two conclusions about the various groups and individuals who've tried to hijack the commemoration. Firstly, that they regard themselves as the bearers of truths which the rest of us are too deadened or complacent to realize, as anyone who has condemned himself to a session surfing wingnut websites knows painfully. Secondly, that the camps which promote these truths are mutually exclusive; you cannot both fulminate against the "Islamization" of America and insist that 9/11 was a message to U.S. imperialism that its chickens had come home to roost. You cannot - to transpose this theme to the motley crew of misfits gathering with their slogans in Lower Manhattan - be Pamela Geller and George Galloway."

- noga1

September 10, 2010 at 2:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Competing pathologies resulting from abuse of First Amendment right. Maybe the legislators and the law professors and the humanities academics ought to sit together and try to tighten this amendment so it cannot serve as a fig leaf for all sorts of nutteries. But that would require an a-priori agreement on what makes a nuttery.

- noga1

September 10, 2010 at 2:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I liked this comment on a Pajamas Media post: "We have as a culture become so sensitive to these ridiculously fragile Muslim sensibilities that when a nobody preacher decides to go to Wall mart, spend ten bucks of his own money on an English language Koran to burn in his own yard as an impotent little protest against the culture that killed 3000 Americans nine years earlier – the President of the United States gets personally involved to try to prevent him from doing that! The issue is not what Muslims do or think. (Their position has been made abundantly clear over the last 1500 years). The issue is not even this Florida preacher. He is an idiot nobody. The issue is, quite frankly – us. If this preacher burns his Koran and Muslims react like Muslims always do and we in turn BLAME THE PREACHER then we have already lost." http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/koran-burning-saga-becomes-the-weirdest-show-on-earth/#comment-632128

- noga1

September 10, 2010 at 5:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

On the other hand, when the U.S. commander in Afghanistan goes to the extent of publicly saying that this event could have a negative effect on force protection in the field, that is, it's definitely not supporting the troops, the kind of people who are always quick to declare "support the troops!" (and always with the unspoken implication that others aren't supporting them enough) suddenly seem to have zero interest in supporting the troops.

- ironyroad

September 10, 2010 at 5:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, Jones repeatedly said that he was very mindful of the troops. It sounded to me like Imam Rauf's insistence that he is very sensitive to the feelings of the protesters. At least some of them. "Let me welcome Pastor Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida to join Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the spiritual leader of SHAS, and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the promoter of Cordoba House to the Pantheon of religious leaders whose commotions have ranged beyond local and national borders. There is no requirement that members of this Pantheon be judged for their wisdom, or even their knowledge of the religious traditions they claim to lead. Enough that they have done something to produce headlines in many countries. God forbid that I would hint that such distinguished persons do not understand the nature of the religions they claim to lead. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are comprehensive in the ideas apparent in their writings and customs. Love, hate, fanaticism, tolerance, moderation, and lots in between appear in these monotheisms. Jones, Ovadia, and Rauf have provoked sharp criticism from those who share their faith, but distant themselves from what they are promoting." http://www.usefulwork.com/shark/archives/014226.html#014226

- noga1

September 10, 2010 at 6:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't have time to slog through all of the comments above, but since the thread is still "live," I will make a few comments. I would agree with anyone who said that there has been a vastly overblown reaction on the part of the media, the government and others to Jones' expressed intent to burn some Qurans on 9/11. In fact, in my view, any possibility of violence being triggered by Jones' contemplated Quran-burning has been exponentially exacerbated by all of the hype. I also would agree with anyone who opined that there are some parallels between the Jones matter and the Park51 matter. In both cases, the actors propose to exercise rights that are protected under the First Amendment. In both cases, there has been an intense (some would say excessive), widespread reaction to the proposed exercise of rights. In neither case has the government attempted or threatened to use legal process to stop the exercise of rights. But in both cases, pressure has been exerted on the actors to refrain from exercising their constitutional rights. And the question in both cases is whether the reasons offered for refraining to exercise the rights are sufficiently compelling that the actor should acquiesce. I have argued on this site that the reasons for opposing Park51 are not sufficiently compelling. The most compelling reason for the opposition to Park51, in my view, is the effect it would have on the sensibilities of the survivors of the 9/11 victims. I have argued that those sensibilities are not sufficiently compelling because they are based on the false impression that there is some connection between the 9/11 murderers and the Park51 proposal simply because Park51 will be a Muslim facility. For Rauf and company to acquiesce to that kind of stereotyping would undermine the very values that are embodied in the First Amendment. In other words, the "offense" arises solely from the mistaken beliefs of the "offended," not from anything the Park51 Muslims are doing. They are not disparaging another religion or defiling the sacred symbols of another religion. Nor are they doing anything to defile the "sacred ground" that is not already being done by other religious groups and commercial enterprises. So for the Park51 Muslims to back down would be to compromise a matter of principle. By the same token, I think it would be fair to subject the Quran-burning proposal to the same analysis. Jones has the right under the First Amendment to engage in his proposed display. He is being pressured to refrain because of the belief that Quran-burning will incite violence against American soldiers stationed or fighting in the Middle East. I trust we would all agree that that concern is much more grave than the concern that Park51 might cause angst among families of 9/11 victims. And what Jones proposes to do is qualitatively different than what the Park51 promoters want to do. He WANTS to cause offense; indeed, he wants to condemn Islam. On the other hand, the Constitution protects Jones' right to criticize, offend or even condemn a religion. And, as with the 9/11 families, the "offense" taken by others is as much the fault of the reactors as it is of Jones. Any "offense" to the Quran-burning display that would result in violence against Americans or anyone else is a despicable overreaction that should be laid at the feet of the reactors, not Jones. So, though I think the reasons for Jones to refrain from exercising his rights are more compelling than they are for the Park51 promoters to refrain from exercising their rights, I don't think they are dispositive. Indeed, the better reaction would be for people to express their criticism of Jones' views, rather than try to get him to shut-up. Dhurtado

- NR143296

September 10, 2010 at 8:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Predictably on cue: "Israel is behind a US Reverend's planned Koran burning, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Thursday, according to the official Iranian news agency IRNA. “The software for this plan was made by the Zionists following their defeats against Muslims and the Islamic world,” Manouchehr said in a meeting with foreign diplomats in Iran. " http://www.jpost.com/international/article.aspx?id=187647&newsletter=100912&utm_source=Pulseem&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=JPost_Newsletter_12/09

- noga1

September 12, 2010 at 11:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.jpost.com/international/article.aspx?id=187647&newsletter=100912&utm_source=Pulseem&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=JPost_Newsletter_12/09

- noga1

September 12, 2010 at 11:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close