Civil blood makes civil hands unclean
If you work at a bookstore for any small length of time, you’ll eventually learn one small rule: No matter how the alphabet falls, never shelve the Koran on the bottom shelf. In fact, just to be on the safe side, put it on the top shelf. People of the Islamic faith feel that to put the Koran on the bottom shelf is to place it close to dirt*, and offers an insult to their religion. Once someone has said “it hurts me when you engage in a certain behavior”, it takes a real asshole to deliberately continue that behavior.
So you can imagine how annoyed Muslims are that some asshole is planning to burn their holy book. I tried to find an explanation for why said douche is planning on doing this. The best I can come up with is: “How much do we back down? How many times do we back down?” Jones told the AP. “Instead of us backing down, maybe it’s to time to stand up. Maybe it’s time to send a message to radical Islam that we will not tolerate their behavior.” I’m trying to wrap my brain around what behavior is being committed by “Radical Islam” that would justify desecrating a book that 20% of all humans deem holy.
“The Quran, according to Jones, is “evil” because it espouses something other than biblical truth and incites radical, violent behavior among Muslims.” That’s a paraphrase, not a quote. Still, it seems like a speck in your brother’s eye sort of thing. Let me be explicit: More Americans on American soil are in danger from “Radical Christianity” than from “Radical Islam”. For a Christian to seek a conflict with criminals fighting for the Islamic faith, and not taking steps to place himself on the opposite side of Christians helping Ugandas write a law that would murder people– it’s unchrisitan. Literally: here’s Jesus on the subject.
This man has put on his Christian robes. He wears them as a child wear’s his father’s tie and plays “office”. It is a masquerade and seems not to know it. I suppose it is inevitable that, in a nation of over 300 million, he can 50 people who believe in the same vision of a deity that he does.
So: I think we’re agreed. The man is an Asshole. And he’s unchristian**. Fortunately, we have a First Amendment. We all have a perfect right to be assholes.
Which brings up General Petraeus. Of course, as an American Citizen (and as a human being), David Petraeus has a perfect right to say anything he wants on the subject. It even sounds like he and I agree: this is a dick move. But free speech applies only to individuals. It most certainly does not apply to Generals speaking as the commander of troops. This is The Military coming down from their moral high ground and telling we ignorant civilians how to behave. The civilian mastery of the Military is one of our bulwarks against tyranny. By speaking out as a general, Petraeus has ever so slightly eroded that bulwark. By itself it isn’t much. But his verbal extension of the battlefield onto American soil is a very bad misstep. He should needs to be rebuked at every level.
(too tired to edit this one guys. Don’t bother pointing out typos)
* Nevermind that we vacuum more often than we dust….
** I’d have to know more about his theology to know if he denies that “Jesus is the Christ [anointed one]“, and is thus an anti-Christ…
Related posts:
Yes, thank you! I had mixed feelings about Patraeus’ statement, but was having trouble really putting it into words. It reminded me so much of people condemning war protests on the basis that it would make us look divided and unresolved, and thus hurt our war effort. When that happened, our response was to say that domestic, civilian freedoms should not be hampered or quelled based on their potential foreign policy implications, as that requires crossing a very dangerous line.
Patraeus, of course, isn’t suggesting we use any legal means to stop them, but rather sending them an open message that this is a bad idea and requesting that they not do it. Essentially, he’s following the principle that the solution to bad speech is more speech. But somehow, when it comes from a general, speaking in his capacity as a general, it feels like it’s edging on censorship, but I was having trouble nailing down why. You’ve nailed it, though.
I actually had written something about how he was merely speaking, and not calling for reprisals against the pastor or church. But it didn’t really work in the paragraph, and I was getting tired. You’re very right to point that out.
Basically, what Patraesus is doing is is the equivalent of your cat biting you to let you know he’s unhappy. It’s not really painful, and it’s a method of communication, and your cat is probably right to be displeased… but when a predator reminds you that it’s got teeth and you live at it’s sufferance, it’s a bit scary…