This issue immediately caught my attention in this morning's paper. Although this is an extremely touchy subject, I'd like to adress this, because it does indeed raise serious questions about the balance between personal liberty and the rights of others.
In essence, this Florida reverend, a 58yr old Terry Jones, has organized an "International Burn a Quran" on September 11th this year, marking the 9th anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centers with a very public, very radical message to the nation of Islam--not just Islamic extemists. According to Jones, "The Quran...is "evil" because it espouses something other than biblical truth and incites radical, violent behavior among Muslims." Despite having accumulated some 50 followers, this man has recieved hundreds of death threats, condemnation from politicians, religious figures, and even General Pretraeus, who warned that this kind of display would incite violence and radical retaliation by Islamics in Afghanistan and around the world.
In light of all this, let's look at what's really going on here:
Reverend Jones has insisted that he's well within his right to burn the books, as protected by the first amendment's right to free speech, which does hold some political legitimacy, doesn't it? As Americans, we're allowed to burn our own flag in protest of our own government, so shouldn't we be allowed to burn whatever we want in protest of whoever we want? That is, aren't we allowed to "peacebly assemble" and protest/rally, as long as we're not damaging public or private property? These Qurans are being donated to Jones, and thus burning them doesn't infringe on anyone else's property...but does it legitimately infringe on the rights of others, or is it just in extremely poor taste?
Petraeus is worried that this "International Burn a Quran Day" will create violence in response by Islam--or at least its more radical supporters. Would such a display really endanger the lives of soldiers in Afghanistan? I doubt that one ultrareligious zealot in Florida can really affect the nation of Islam, especially consiering the amount of backlash this man has recieved, from everyone from the local to the federal level.
My opinion: Was Jones within the law in creating this "holiday"? Yes, I believe so. Was he morally justified in his actions? Not in my book. But I want to know what you think: Should the Reverend be allowed to follow through on his word, or are we obligated to stop him somehow?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lne0NoxEoz8
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I'd have to agree with you Alex; I think Jones can legally create this holiday (to an extent). His views concerning Islam have a right to be expressed because of the First Amendment and whatnot. I also agree that this is just plain stupid because as a moral human being nobody should be creating anything like this holiday. I feel like there's a limit to how far he can go with this kind of thing because I feel like the government has a right to intervene in this sort of situation in order to insure domestic tranquility if it impacts American relations with the Middle East negatively. I also feel like we should be able to stop him because of the general response created from this act. It's clear that there are many people who are upset over this, and this brings to my mind the quote "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins" by Oliver Wendell Holmes. Therefore I feel that if this becomes a problem to enough Americans, he should be stopped with federal actions.
Excellent post Alex!(and I came here hoping someone would post about this) I also would have to agree with you that Rev. Jones is not morally justified in supporting the burning of Qur'ans. It is probably the utmost disrespect one could show to not only another religion, but to an entire culture, in burning such a sacred book. With that being said, I believe Rev. Jones should be stopped by the government because, technically, we are involved in a war and his actions could incite an unneeded attack on our soldiers; thus, invoking the "clear and present danger" of American citizens as seen back in Schenck v. USA.
While I do think that the comments are well written and show a sense of passion to what they support, I must disagree with a few of their comments. The reverend has a moral compass which is obviously different than yours and mine, but that doesn't give him any less right to express his own moral compass. I personally don't agree with his ideals, but to have any government intervention whatsoever with his planned event would be unconstitutional. We have given our citizens the right to burn our very own flag and life size dolls of our leaders. To take away a citizen's ability to do something that they feel passionate about goes against what our country stands for. We cannot be biased as to whose rights we intervene with. Islam is also the second largest religion in the world. Perhaps we shouldn't only focus on the fact that we're at war with a heavily Islamic country and remember that there are multiple Islamic countries who will have mixed opinions on this topic. I only hope that they recognize the fact that an act of aggression from a citizen is not an act of aggression from United States. "If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter", -George Washington.
He has every right to create a holiday that doesn't interfere with the lives of others. As long as this holiday does not cause any property damage and physical harm then under the 1st amendment he has full protection of the law. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion (although it may be crazy) and the United States can't be taking side in moral and religious issues. Society will dictate on how this "holiday" is looked upon and it will continue to happen if society doesn't take strong Action to condemn this action/Ideals.
While I'm sure we can all agree that this is immoral and unjustified, he hasn't done anything to go beyond his First Amendment rights. I really don't think that this "Burn a Quran Day" constitutes a "clear and present danger" to anybody's safety. I doubt that a 50-person fringe cult in Florida can really significantly change international opinion toward the United States in any significant way, and even if it did, it would be so far removed from the effect that you cannot justify the government stepping in to stop it.
In my opinion, Bobby is right in that we ought not assume our "moral compass" is equivalent to the moral compass of others. Clearly, the reverend believes he has a right to burn the Quran, and American law clearly grants him this right. However, I disagree with Tony's opinion that the federal government ought step in if it becomes a problem to enough Americans. What constitutes "enough"? If this policy was extended to other issues, the government would have to step into and stop a huge variety of issues, which would then limit free speech.
On a slightly different note, I worry that this Quran burning may cause serious problems in Middle Eastern countries, not in terms of actual attacks, but in terms of American image. It is widely agreed that Obama has drastically bettered public opinion of America in the Middle East, but this change could easily go the other way. Radical Muslims obtain a majority of their justification for hating the West through actions we take, such as this Quran burning and the groups fighting against the new Mosque being built near the 9-11 site. My question is this: Do our religious fundamentalists mirror the Muslim religious fundamentalists in the Middle East who attack our soldiers? And does their opposition to Muslims drastically affect our relationship with the Middle East?
Wow, I never thought of that Bobby and now that I look back on it that was short-sided of me to be judging someone else's moral compass against my own and trying to assert that mine is better than their's.
On another note, I feel Kathy has brought up a very valid point about the "fundamentalists" of both sides. They do appear to mirror each other in that they tend to look for ways other than civil negotiation to solve our problems. I find it ironic that these Muslim "fundamentalists" prevent peaceful negotiations, but at the same time we have our own "fundamentalists" that hinder us from peacefully negotiating as well and put a further strain on our attempt to reach out to the countries of the Middle East.
While I also believe the government cannot intervene and stop Jones from creating this 'holiday' and doing what he wants. It is certainly arguable that his actions are protected by the First Amendment. But as established by judicial rulings in the past, Jones' comments and actions may be punishable if they present a "clear and present danger" and incite people to crime or violence. It is for the courts to decide if Rev. Terry Jones acted under the protection of the First Amendment, or if he crossed a line. Just wanted to make that point. I'm not suggesting what he did or said is legal or illegal, but simply that we cannot definitively say for ourselves.
But like I said (as did others), the government should not intervene and try to stop Jones. We should leave that to the courts to stop him by the law (which I hope they do). The government however can counteract Jones' inflammatory remarks and actions. The Obama administration must make clear to the rest of the world that Jones is a lunatic and in no way represents the sentiments of the American people. It must condemn Jones heavily, and make sure that message of disapproval reaches the ears of the Muslim world. Muslims are already burning effigies and rioting. We must not let this anger build.
This tactic to counter Jones may be less effective than simply silencing the reverend. But to avoid inflaming the Muslim world and remaining loyal to our values of freedom, this is the most ideal solution.
Also, breaking news: Jones is not burning the Qurans anymore. There has apparently been a compromise between him and the Muslim religious leader responsible for the New York mosque. Just FYI.
I forgot to mention this previously, but I feel some blame should be levied on the American media. The media exposure Jones got is unbelievable, and it's probably why he did this--for publicity. Not only has this huge media coverage given Jones what he wants, but it is why Muslims are rioting and burning effigies.
The media exposure is unavoidable, but it is a prime cause in the problem. If some random person were to burn a Quran privately in his house right now (which no one should ever do), no one would care and no Islamist extremist would take up arms in anger. Same with Jones. If no one turned an eye to his lunacy, he would simply be a ranting fool in Florida. But because of the media, he is a dangerous international trigger to anti-American violence.
This story reminds us that the perfect way to deal with attention-seeking big-mouths is to ignore them. Their outrageous behavior makes this impossible, but the more we ignore, the less influence such people have.
It's not the judicial system or the Obama Administration's job to take any responsibility for the people flexing their rights under the First Amendment. He is "nonviolently" protesting. The United States revolves around the mind set of "to each their own" and if we stop a man who is legally in the green for doing something that he believes is right then we go against what we stand for. Imagine if Martin Luther King Jr. was legally detained for going against what the majority thought was correct. I'm not saying that this is the case for Reverend Jones, but we live in the land of opportunity where we give people an opportunity to protest for what they believe is right.
The Quaran burning has been canceled.
Bobby, there are several conditions in which freedom of speech and other rights in the First Amendment can be limited. For example, yelling to a crowd to kill somebody is not protected by the First Amendment.
My point is you cannot say anything legally. There are exceptions, and we cannot immediately say Jones' remarks are protected by the First Amendment or not. It can be argued that Jones' comments incites violence. It can also be argued that he is well within his constitutional right to free speech. We simply do not know. Consequently, we entrust our judicial system to make such decisions.
It's not my intention to insinuate that anyone can say anything and call it free speech. It just so happens that what he is doing is protected under the First Amendment as it is "peaceful" protest and aimed against a set of ideals, not necessarily a group of people.
Post a Comment