The U.S. government under Barack Obama is deeply committed to battling any belittlement, criticism, or questioning of Islam. (“I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States,” he said, “to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”)
At the same time, however, it is OK, in the Obama regime, for the U.S. government to burn Bibles. Yes, that’s right. Bibles were sent to U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. But the U.S. government determined that the presence of Bibles in this “devoutly Muslim country” might inflame the natives. So they burned them. Why did they burn them? Because it is military policy to burn its trash.
So, the Bibles, according to U.S. policy, are trash, garbage, and it’s OK to burn them.
When it comes to the Koran, however, an official Department of Defense memo specifies a rather different procedure. Item 4, “Handling”:1.Clean gloves will be put on in full view of the detainees prior to handling.
2.Two hands will be used at all times when handling the Koran in manner signaling respect and reverence. Care should be used so that the right hand is the primary one used to manipulate any part of the Koran due to the cultural association with the left hand. Handle the Koran as if it were a fragile piece of delicate art.
Isn’t that nice? Handle it “as if it were a fragile piece of delicate art.” But burn the Bible because it is just part of your trash.
Whaddaya think? Will the UN issue a condemnation? Lindsay Graham? Nah. Christians won't go out looking for someone, anyone, to kill because of this. It is only Muslims who can't control themselves, it appears. So they must not be offended with controversial reading material. This is purely about the Islamic instant rage triggers, and the fear which that instills in western officials who are prone to take responsibility for having incited it rather than place responsibility on those who rage and murder.
2 comments:
Burning books is an act which has historically been associated with suppressing the contents. As such it is consistently condemned by freethinkers and other people who value the unfettered exchange of ideas, even those ideas which some people may find offensive.
Nowadays the internet makes it essentially impossible to suppress radical or offensive speech, and so burning books is ineffective for its historical purpose and has now diminished to a weak "I don't like your text".
The US Army burned the books not because they disagree with the text but because they were not required, and they wouldn't have helped the local situation (i.e. proselytising to the locals won't win the army any friends).
Now the Christians and Muslims are up in arms because it was their holy book burned (by the army and by Terry Jones respectively). To that I have to say - grow up. It's just a book. That it's your holy book is of no consequence to somebody who isn't in your religion. Those (bibles/qurans) were the property of (the army / Terry Jones) and they have the right to burn their own property.
Equating freethinkers with unfettered exchange of ideas is a leap for sure. Just try lecturing on many forbidden subjects on a college campus that is infested with "freethinkers" and you will find just how open to free exchange they are.
The Bibles in native language are not replaced by internet in places that don't have electricity, or which filter the internet.
I agree that sending the books through the Army was a pretty stupid error.
"Up at arms" is a loaded term as you certainly must be aware: No Christians took to the streets looking for someone to behead. Registering displeasure? Read what PZ Meyer said about the desecration of Atheist Religious Icon: PissChrist - which of course is just a photograph. Barbarians!... he screamed. Major internet hypocrite.
In terms of property ownership, the Army didn't own the Bibles, a soldier owned them and the Army confiscated them (stole them). PZ's destruction of the communion wafer: it was stolen. The burnt Qur'ans: personal property. PissChrist, the original subject: probably owned by the photographer. PissChrist, the photo: owned by the museum, and whether the museum is public or private, the destruction is vandalism because the photo was not owned by the actors.
Certainly it is possible to say, grow up; placing an artifact in urine is intended to arouse just the emotions that it did. It was successful performance art, mais non?
But of course the intent here was to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the US government officials who immediately claimed a need to reduce American freedoms in order not to offend Muslims (who are presumed incapable of self-control). Did these same officials object to the US government perfoming the same act - burning religious artifacts - when the religion was Christianity? Why the favoritism? After all "it's just a book", and "it's just a photo", and it's just a "statue in a jar of urine".
By the way, the reaction to the destruction of PissChrist is delicious, especially in the environment of supercilious contempt that exudes from the Atheo-Left.
Post a Comment