It a pastor wanted to show real courage, and do something with a truly destabilizing impact on the Islamic world, he'd do something like this:
Posted on 09/10/2010 2:10:45 PM PDT by nickcarraway
I remember growing up in a conservative movement that, reacting to the rampant permissiveness of the 1960s and '70s, stressed the virtue of civility. Sure, you have the right to flagrantly offend your neighbors and your community. But should you? Conservatism used to answer "no."
It was one of the cultural demarcations between the right and the left. If you were on the right, you generally thought it unacceptable to excuse boorish behavior with the utterance, "but it's my constitutional right!" Conservatives understood that self-restraint reduced the pressure for government-imposed restraint. We understood that with our civil rights came civic responsibilities. We understood that the United States of America was a land of tremendous religious, ethnic, and cultural diversity and that the peaceful coexistence of all of these people of such varying backgrounds and beliefs required tolerance, and tolerance meant treating others as you would have them treat you. In short, the republic itself relied upon civility.
Most conservatives still get this, I think. But sometimes I wonder how much the self-indulgence of the left has seduced our side. In the last few days, we've seen many on the right come out in defense of a proposal that once would have been almost universally considered indefensible, at least on the right -- the burning of hundreds of Korans in a deliberate attempt to anger and provoke Muslims around the world.
How can we condemn the constant and never-ending anti-Christian provocations of the radical, secular left and then rise to Terry Jones' defense on the lame excuse that he has the right to free expression? Or worse, that not going through with his planned incitement amounts to somehow giving in to the terrorists? No, it doesn't. It amounts to a belated display of common decency.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
(But hey, let’s worry about the First Amendment protected act of burning a personally owned book.)
A conservative burns a Koran to preserve his First Amendment rights to do so in the face of creeping Sharia.
Have you checked Drudge? This guy isn’t the only one burning a Qu’ran. The press just chose him as the face of the act. Wonder why?
You got that right. As a former leftist I can tell you first hand that being civil is seen not only as ‘’bourgeois’’ but as being weak. Islam and the Left bully. When you stand up to bullies they back off.
Burning an inanimate book takes no bravery. It’s just immature, not brave.
Well, I’d shoot ‘em, but tickets to Afghanistan are expensive! ;-)
” The sad truth is the left and some fools on the right have just given the muslims exalted status. “
EXACTLY !!!!!!
It a pastor wanted to show real courage, and do something with a truly destabilizing impact on the Islamic world, he'd do something like this:
“And that is relevant how?”
Islamofascists hardly need a provocation to continue their murderous rampages.
Mine at #69.
We knew that.
You asked.
“Sorry, but this “stay civil” nonsense is nothing more than gutless capitulation and appeasement.
The thing about the burning of the Koran was that it would have done nothing, NOTHING, to reduce the availability of the Koran to whoever wanted to read it, nor would it have restricted anyone’s right to practice Islam here. It was just a political, symbolic statement, and all of these hand-wringing, whining p*ssies are screaming “No, don’t do it! It will make everyone so angry!” So, no free speech for Americans anymore, just for Islamic nutjobs, leftists America-haters, and illegal aliens bent on reclaiming a third of the country. All of you taxpayers can go to hell, and smile while you do it, but at least you’ll feel good about yourselves for being “civil”. Bah.”
Bah, indeed.
I’m a troglodyte. A Neanderthal. I can barely put a sentence together.
I say “burn ‘em!”
To all those who think that tossing the Quran into a fire is “un-American”, I ask:
Who - or what - is the “enemy” here?
Who - or what - leads them, and urges them on?
What is his/their/its intent for you, the nonbeliever?
When I see the Quran - and all that it represents - I see, plainly and clearly, the “enemy” which we of The West face.
I know what the writer of that book intends for us. Into the flames is EXACTLY where I wish to see him - and his creed - thrown.
This is as powerful and symbolic an act that we of The West can use to demonstrate to Islam what we intend for it.
Inflammtory? YES.
Insensitive? OF COURSE.
Provactive? I HOPE SO.
Islam had no problems when 2,700+ lives (that’s HUMAN LIVES, not paper Qurans) “burned” at the World Trade Center 9 years ago tomorrow. They were literally dancing in the streets in parts of the Islamic world.
Burn ‘em!
Whether The West provokes, ignores, bombs to the stone age or befriends and funds the Islamists, they murder anyway.
So your opposition may be a moral one, but it is totally inconsequential in affecting their behavior, as witnessed by my quite relevant list of ongoing Muslim atrocities, which will continue long after the Koran burning incident is forgotten by all parties.
“Burning an inanimate book takes no bravery. It’s just immature, not brave.”
Just like drawing a few cartoons about Muhammed, eh?
So is getting all up in arms over it.
Whereas baptizing Magdi Allam sends a massive injection of courage into the arteries of thousands of ex-Muslims and many more thousands of would-be-ex-Muslims, and shows the true vulnerability of Islam.
To tell you the truth, at this point Islam is just surging into a vacuum. Rapid as its advance appears, it's not nearly as rapid as the Judeo-Christian spiritual collapse. I'm talking about in the USA but especially in Europe. It's like termites attacking an already rotting structure.
Koran-smoke won't stop this. That's an example of fighting something with nothing.
Benedict has something. You watch.
Well, we’re talking past one another. We’ll both resist in our own ways. Good luck!
Isn’t it odd that they are in lock-step with every media talking head, every politician, every commentator?
And they use the same theme (meme?)
kook, looney, 15 minutes of fame, etc.
Likewise on the mosque thing. It’s “legal” but not “sensitive.”
How ‘bout this?
1. Jones has succeeded at showing that Islamics will kill for the barest reason.
2. Islam is not a religion, but a government hiding behind a god name, so no special protections for it...any more than the human sacrifice cults of ancient days.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.