Support the Troops and Honor the Victims? Not Really. But It Sounds Good.
In Gainesville, Florida, there is a group called the “Dove World Outreach Center.” From the name of it, you would think that it is an organization seeking peace by reaching out to the world.
So naturally, they want to hold a high-publicized event where they burn copies of the Koran.
Actually, the “Dove” part of the title is probably more a reference to the Holy Spirit rather than to peace in general, and the “World Outreach” part is more about proselytization, about domination Dominion theology, not reaching out in respect and tolerance. They’re really a fundamentalist group with strong anti-Islamic tendencies who apparently think that burning the Koran is a peachy idea to show their dedication to “love, healing and prosperity” by going “outside the walls” of their church and “marching for righteousness.” Among their reasons for burning the Koran: Muslims don’t believe Christ is the Son of God, the Koran is of human origin (unlike the Bible), it includes Arabian idolatry, paganism, rites and rituals, it was written after Mohammad’s death and is confused, contradictory and inconsistent, it’s totalitarian, etc. etc. (Funny, I have heard most of these used by atheists to criticize Christianity….)
Anyway, these peace-loving righteous folk have now been officially warned by our military leaders in the Middle East: what you’re doing could get our troops killed and can endanger our whole mission. Burning the Koran “could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort,” said General Petraeus; “It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems. Not just here, but everywhere in the world, we are engaged with the Islamic community.” His deputy added that “their very actions will in fact jeopardize the safety of the young men and women who are serving in uniform over here and also undermine the very mission that we’re trying to accomplish.”
So, will the Dove World Outreach Center reconsider its plans? They say “no,” although they’re “praying” about it real hard. But their plans remain in place.
Now, they certainly have the right to burn the Koran, no question there. But these people are just the kind of folk who often claim to honor the troops and drape themselves in patriotism, and yet they knowingly, even brashly put the soldiers in danger. For what reason?
He says the goal of burning Korans is to send a message to al-Qaida, the violent Islamic group that carried out the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington nine years ago.
“That led us to International Burn a Koran Day, to honor those who were murdered at that time [September 11th]. And to put a real clear message out to Islam that we will not tolerate, we do not want them trying to push their agenda on us, in other words Sharia law,” he said.
Shows what a fool this guy is–al Qaeda, while probably not enjoying the Koran being defiled in any way, is almost certainly gleeful that this is happening; this is exactly the kind of animosity they have been trying to build, exactly the image of the West they hope to propagate amongst Muslims. As for “honoring” those murdered on 9/11,“ I will wager good money that this guy has not spoken to a single family member who lost someone on that day, and probably has no actual clue how most of them would in fact feel about something like this.
In New York, Pamela Geller, the woman who has been leading the wingnut charge to demonize Islam and take down the Park51 project, plans a protest rally in front of the proposed site on September 11. However, a coalition of 9/11 families’ groups as well as many of the family members individually have respectfully asked they hold the rally on a different day:
The proposed mosque has caused tremendous pain and great concern to many within the 9/11 community. Our desire, which we hope you share, is simply to preserve 9/11 for appropriate remembrance and reflection – we do not believe that protest rallies of this nature should take place on such a sacred day and in such close proximity to Ground Zero.
Geller claims that because there are some families who support her, and because she has not received a direct request (registered mail required, I’m guessing) from a majority of the families of the victims, she feels fully justified and will ignore those she is offending.
Which goes to show that she doesn’t give a shit about the families of the victims. After all, the mosque doesn’t offend all the families of the victims, and yet Geller feels passionate supposedly about the possibility of offending even some of the families. However, she could care less about doing the exact same thing herself.
In both cases, we have people whose actions betray their claims: they are not doing this for the victims of 9/11, or for peace, or for battered women, or for America, or for whatever excuse sounds best–but the fact is, they are doing it for themselves, for their own base and selfish reasons. Fact is, they don’t like the victims’ families (right wingers like Geller, for example, hated them when they protested Bush), they just like the victims’ families who will stand behind them and give credence to their twisted little campaigns. What they do and especially the manner in which they do it, in the face of potentially hurting many of those they would claim to support, exemplifies that they don’t give a rat’s ass about them, but use them as a convenient excuse to pretty up their motives.
about domination theology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Theology
“we do not want them trying to push their agenda on us, in other words Sharia law,” he said”
The disconnect there people have about the probability of sharia being established in North America is stunning.
They seem to be laboring under thedolchstosslegende that the US is so rife with defeatist liberals that it can non longer prosecute wars successfully.
These Christianists do not understand that we liberals hate totalitarians of any stripe. Just because we reject them and their stupidity does not mean we will welcome a foreign replacement.
One of the nicer things about living in Japan is the relative absence of public religiosity, how being publicly religious basically makes you a whackjob in the society.
Part of this whackaloon stuff might also be the drive to bring on the Apocalypse. The worse things get the sooner they’ll be airlifted out of here.
Oops. Dominion, not Domination. Serves me right for not giving myself more time. Very busy at school, this post was written over two (three?) days.
But the idea is clear, I trust. These people are not against theocracy, they’re against someone else getting there first. And, as you point out, they’re not really afraid of Islam getting there first in America, but it sure does a great job of getting publicity and whipping the congregation into a frenzy.
The only explanation of this without seeing them as paranoid or opportunistic liars is that they see their mission as spreading The Word across the world, and see Islam as having gotten to too many places first, and threatening to take over more. They see it as a real battle, and Islam they see as far more militant and active.
So naturally, the way to sway people over to their side is to burn a bunch of Korans. That’ll convince a whole bunch of Muslims that Christ is indeed The Way. Yep.
Pretty much everyone has come out against this, including Beck and Palin.
Is there a point at which we can kick someone out of the ‘right wing’? Just because they are not with you, it does not follow that they are with us.
Considering that it is a favorite mainstay of right-wing tactics to find the most extreme, unacceptable, and disagreeable component of or even an association of an issue or personage of the left–real or imagined–and then brand the entire liberal aspect with that, I find your plea to be somewhat amusing.
The issue of reproductive rights? “Partial-birth” abortion. Gun control legislation? Gun confiscation by jack-booted thugs. President Obama? The Weather Underground, Communists, fascists, God Damn America. Civil rights? Reverse discrimination. Feminism? Bossy butch lesbians. Secularism? War on Christianity. Every time a terrorist suspect is captured, right-wing bloggers and commenters immediately slap labels of “registered Democrat voter” on them, going berserk with it the rare times it actually turns out to be true. According to the right wing, the left “owns” William Ayers, Louis Farrakhan, the New Black Panthers, etc. etc., and when things get general, Stalin, Lenin, and eventually Hitler.
So when there is an all-out assault from virtually the entire right wing against the religion of Islam in America, with heated, hateful, bigoted rhetoric flying all over the conservative hemisphere, suddenly a bastion of conservatism which decides to take it one step further is “not with you”? And I am guilty of unjustly branding them as part of the right wing simply because I disagree with them?
Good for Palin for coming out against this. Unfortunately, it’s like an arsonist speaking out against the church burning down because the fire spread from the abandoned coat factory she set on fire. There is a point at which trying to disown your children in front of the media just comes across as somewhat opportunistic.
No true scotsman…
Hey Luis, chill out;
Jon was trying to agree with you…
Ok, my two cents worth here…
Burning a Koran on worldwide TV only serves to increase the number of American enemies in the world. Right now, there is only a small number of anti-American extremists among the Muslim community. But once the general Muslim population witnesses this crude insult on their religion, an alarming number of them will join with the extremists.
It was the same situation with those Mohammed cartoon images on South Park. Most Americans thought, “who the hell cares if it insults a few Muslims! Let them watch something else blah, blah, blah.” But the reality is the US needs to build rapport with non-extremist Muslims in order to calm the waters in so many parts of the world, including here in the States.
Remember, although Muslims follow the teachings of Mohammed, they have the right to choose their own friends and enemies just as anyone else. At this stage of the game, the US has very little credibility in the Muslim world. It can only benefit from displaying and reciprocating trust to Muslims at large.
Here’s my idea; instead of “Burn a Koran Day”, why not remember 9-11 with a “Read a Koran Day”? Surely those who plan to burn the Koran for the evil it contains have never actually read it.
Ignorance is bliss, I guess..
–kensensei
The American Library Association is doing a Qur’an reading in response the right wing fucktards’ koran burning.
Sometimes I look at all the religions that have crawled out of the sands of the Middle East and think, “A pox on all of you!”
Ken: about Jon, I don’t think that was his point. About the rest: exactly. Furthermore, there’s a difference between criticizing a belief and abasing a belief. I was pretty uncomfortable with PZ Myers’ wafer stunt, and the rather vehement attacks of people like Dawkins. Both people offer logical arguments, but both also launch into hate-driven stunts and tirades.
K: excellent conciseness on the Scotsman bit. As for the ALA, that’s great, though unfortunately that kind of thing gets muted while the Gainesville thing gets the press. Part of it is what plays better, in both arenas.
Rob: So, essentially, all major Western religions?
Is it my imagination? There have always been nitwits, in the U.S. and everywhere. But they largely kept to themselves or were isolated in their own ghettos. Now they seem to have become part of the respectable mainstream: few consider them shocking. If you choose to get philosophical, you may wonder whether democracy and freedom of expression have any future … It was meant for reasonable people and not for the lunatic fringe who belong in asylums.
Sometimes I look at all the religions that have crawled out of the sands of the Middle East
Sometimes?
I was thinking Christianity would be pretty good if they stuck to the actual words attributed to Jesus and threw the rest of the crap out; ie go with the Godhead thing and start living like Communists as the teachings outline.
you may wonder whether democracy and freedom of expression have any future
Madison was hopeful that all the nitwits would naturally divide themselves in their nitwittery and not be able to coalition enough to form a stable majority to ram through their nitwit agenda via the majoritarian mechanisms of government.
We saw in California’s Prop 8 example how this expectation/hope was failed, but even now there are some faultlines between Sarah Palin evangelical Christianism (of the Bush variety) and Beck’s more Roman Catholic/Mormon flavor of conservatism. Fundies have little to no truck with Catholics and Mormons so this is a very unstable coalition, even though they did successful get together on the Prop 8 BS.
As for freedom of expression, this koran thing is blown all out of proportion.
It should be a teaching moment that in our system of liberty people have the general freedom to do and say things as long as they don’t contribute to the real harm of others.
We shouldn’t have to apologize for that.
So then, when someone holds the actions of an extremist minority against anyone who can be identified with them in some massively larger group with no ability to remove members is that:
a- perfectly justified
b- closed minded bigotry
Let me help extend the metaphor. If you take the most extreme statement by anyone in your externally identified group and attribute it to anyone who says anything that could be even vaguely considered agreement to even the smallest degree, is that:
a- fairly earned criticism
b- libel that should not be protected by free speech
You answer those questions, and THEN I’ll tell you which group I am talking about.
Jon:
Excellent job of twisting there; hope you didn’t strain anything.
Wow! Lots of modifiers to place the Dove group as far as humanly possible from any imaginable right-wing endeavor.
You appear to claim:
(1) The Dove group is making the most extreme statements by anyone in “your externally identified group” (whoa, are you yourself placing them in the group you previously said they were not a part of?);
(2) What mainstream members of that group are saying can only be “vaguely” considered agreement to the sentiments of the Dove group by “the smallest degree” possible;
(3) I am directly attributing the full force of the remarks of the Dove group to any and all of those individuals.
Whew! What a set of charges!
First off, do I really need to wade into statements made by Michele Bachmann, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and many other mainstream right-wingers who have said things just as outrageous if not more so? Try out “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity” for starters. You really want to go there? The Koran burning, next to the high pile of mainstream conservative crap, is not nearly as extreme as you make it out to be, however convenient that may be to your current argument.
Second, the non-stop spew over the past month or so vilifying Islam and setting Americans against their Islamic countrymen is only different than a Koran-burning in matter of specific form and a short distance of degree. How many have thought to bring dogs to mosques lately, even as part of organized movements? Equated the whole religion to terrorism, brutality, and the worst extreme elements possible or imaginable? Your attempt to paint the Dove group’s actions as similar only in the “smallest degree” is laughable. It’s a direct offshoot of the anti-mosque movement at large. Unwanted perhaps, not what some would do themselves, maybe, but is very much in line with the now-common tactic of disrespecting, vilifying, and fighting Islam as well as goading Muslims.
Finally, if you care to read the original post, I tied Geller to the right wing, not the Florida church. (An earlier draft had, in the last paragraph, “right-wingers don’t like the victims’ families” at first, but I consciously moved the word “right-wingers” to sit with Geller, not with both examples.) I associated the two for their common trait of not really caring about those they use as an excuse to carry out their agenda.
So, how you took the original post and got the accusation that I was directly attributing the Dove group to the right wing is beyond me, unless you were just (a) dishonestly making it up to avoid the central issue, or (b) carelessly overlooked the fact and just assumed. I believe you don’t like it much when people do that.
After your accusation, based on your rather intriguing claim that they could not be classified as “right wing,” I took up the challenge and I pointed out the specific ties between the two in the political-affiliation sense that you brought up, and identified the causal relationship, which is quite real and not at all vague. You can’t stir up a mob to hate “A,” make it a nationwide political cause, pushing it to the media spotlight, and then claim that you have only the ‘smallest possible vague link via a huge external group’ to someone who then burns “A” in effigy. You broke it, you bought it.
So forgive me if I don’t step into your cute little false-choice quiz.
Personally I think people ought to be free to burn whatever they want: the bible, the koran, the flag, this is free speech.
Of course, there is the old adage, “where they burn books they will soon be burning people.”
Of course, our society, or I should say “southern” societies have been burning people for a long time. And right along with it, they’ve been burning crosses. And we have never been short of nut jobs, most especially in the south. This is just us displaying to the world what kind of nut jobs we have here in the U.S.
The real problem is the media publicizing this sort of thing. “If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, did it really happen?” The downfall of our country will be documented as the day Rupert Murdock was granted citizenship and subsequently allowed to own media in this country. This kind of thing used to be quietly ignored – now the nutjobs are allowed to make statement that gets taken for all of America.
On a side note, this is more proof that Islam is the most paganistic of all the world religions (IMHO). Mecca was an idol worshiping community before Islam and the Koran was just a substitute for that. They still pray to the Kaba which still has a rock inside of it, a meteorite perhaps, but the real idol is the koran, just as for fundy Christians, interpreting the bible literally is a form of idol worship. This is just another reason why Islam is incompatible with modernism in general, and the West. Free speech and free press means that religious figures and symbols can be lampooned, from time to time, and political figures MUST be lampooned frequently. Islam is both religion and political ideology – therefore it is subject to lampooning, but because of it’s idol worshiping nature it is extremely sensitive to the desecration of it’s idols.
I admit a bias towards Christ. He said two very important things: separate religion from politics and when you pray, go to your room, shut the door, lock it (and presumably, turn off the T.V.) for the prayers you say in secret are the real prayers. I love both of those things.
Of course Christ says those things in commandment style, so that people who don’t honor them are in fact ‘non-christians’ in my book. These guys burning Korans are anti-thetical to both commandments: they actions are very public and very political. In short they are offending both Christ and Islam in one fell swoop, in my mind.
@Luis
“Equated the whole religion to terrorism, brutality, and the worst extreme elements possible or imaginable?”
So close. So very close. You almost get it.
You think I am accusing you of this and that, and saying various things about the Dove group.
But I accused you of nothing, and the only mention of the Dove group I made was to say I don’t want to be associated with them.
I asked two questions, and they stand on their own merits.
Hmmm. given more than a 10 minute break to work with, I find I have a more refined version of those questions.
It is simply : Regardless of how loud or public the people who make offensive or even threatening statements are; regardless of the offshoot groups that threaten and commit violence in both directed and random fashion; regardless of the the fact that these offshoot groups may contain a number of members that is non-trivial in the absolute sense, is it acceptable to characterize ALL (or even the vast majority of)members of the group by their actions?
And again, you do not get to know what group I am referring to.
@Luis
At times, yes. Violence-prone, self-righteous, intolerant.
At other times, my feeling might mellow a little. And I don’t at all believe that the founders of christianity or islam had this in mind. The distortions come from their followers.