The fault lies with the one pulling the trigger
I know, I know. I shouldn't get involved. It's only going to anger people. But this has been on my mind for too long, and writing/posting this will get it out of my mind, so I can concentrate on other things.
I've been hearing this story on the news, on Headline News, WINS, nearly everywhere: A pastor in Florida is planning to burn copies of the Koran, and the news media are up in arms over this "potentially dangerous" act. But every one of the talking heads denouncing the activity has their fear and anger pointed the wrong way.
Disclaimer: I don't like the idea of burning books. Ray Bradbury and George Orwell covered the topic very well in their novels: burning books doesn't teach anything, and doesn't say anything good about the burner. But in the end, books are just books. Ink on paper, generated by the thousands, and having no real value in and of themselves, but valuable for the information they can convey. And if the pastor owns the books in question, he can dispose of them however he wishes.
But the hue and cry is not "Gosh, what an ignorant man, who thinks burning books will do anything positive." No, the outcry is "If he burns those books, some dangerous animals may react by killing people." Well, if those dangerous animals (members of al-Qaeda and other "extremist Muslims" such as the Taliban) might kill people, they really don't need this trigger to do so. They've proven time and again that they'll kill for any reason, or no reason at all.
And if we're going to worry about every action, to make sure it doesn't trigger a response from those animals, we may as well close the lid and pull the dirt over ourselves.
No, the response to "there are animals who might kill people for their religious beliefs" is to get rid of those killers. No religion is so important, so correct, that it should allow its adherents to kill others. And people who claim to be killing because of religion should be considered rabid animals, rather than people.
We don't like Revered Jones burning Korans? Fine. Let's tell him we don't like it. But if we don't want him to do so simply because we fear how someone else is going to react? Well, then our anger is really targeted at the wrong person.
I think Jones has the right of it: "The general needs to point his finger to radical Islam and tell them to shut up, tell them to stop, tell them that we will not bow our knees to them," Jones said on CNN's AC360. "We are burning the book. We are not killing someone. We are not murdering people."
Although he doesn't go far enough when he says "We realize that this action would indeed offend people, offend the Muslims. I am offended when they burn the flag. I am offended when they burn the Bible. But we feel that the message that we are trying to send is much more important than people being offended." Me, personally, I'm even more offended when they kill people.
Reference: Clinton condemns Quran-burning plan
I've been hearing this story on the news, on Headline News, WINS, nearly everywhere: A pastor in Florida is planning to burn copies of the Koran, and the news media are up in arms over this "potentially dangerous" act. But every one of the talking heads denouncing the activity has their fear and anger pointed the wrong way.
Disclaimer: I don't like the idea of burning books. Ray Bradbury and George Orwell covered the topic very well in their novels: burning books doesn't teach anything, and doesn't say anything good about the burner. But in the end, books are just books. Ink on paper, generated by the thousands, and having no real value in and of themselves, but valuable for the information they can convey. And if the pastor owns the books in question, he can dispose of them however he wishes.
But the hue and cry is not "Gosh, what an ignorant man, who thinks burning books will do anything positive." No, the outcry is "If he burns those books, some dangerous animals may react by killing people." Well, if those dangerous animals (members of al-Qaeda and other "extremist Muslims" such as the Taliban) might kill people, they really don't need this trigger to do so. They've proven time and again that they'll kill for any reason, or no reason at all.
And if we're going to worry about every action, to make sure it doesn't trigger a response from those animals, we may as well close the lid and pull the dirt over ourselves.
No, the response to "there are animals who might kill people for their religious beliefs" is to get rid of those killers. No religion is so important, so correct, that it should allow its adherents to kill others. And people who claim to be killing because of religion should be considered rabid animals, rather than people.
We don't like Revered Jones burning Korans? Fine. Let's tell him we don't like it. But if we don't want him to do so simply because we fear how someone else is going to react? Well, then our anger is really targeted at the wrong person.
I think Jones has the right of it: "The general needs to point his finger to radical Islam and tell them to shut up, tell them to stop, tell them that we will not bow our knees to them," Jones said on CNN's AC360. "We are burning the book. We are not killing someone. We are not murdering people."
Although he doesn't go far enough when he says "We realize that this action would indeed offend people, offend the Muslims. I am offended when they burn the flag. I am offended when they burn the Bible. But we feel that the message that we are trying to send is much more important than people being offended." Me, personally, I'm even more offended when they kill people.
Reference: Clinton condemns Quran-burning plan