Book Burning

Reply
Report this post

I'm stunned. As a law school professor for so many years, you know it is constitutionally-protected-speech to burn an American flag or to immerse a crucifix in urine and call it art. It is constitutionally permissible for Nazis to march through Skokie or for Muslims to build a "cultural center" in the shadow of the World Trade Center. All of these acts are highly offensive to many people and create a very real risk of confrontation and violence. Yet, when an act proves offensive to Muslims, the rules are somehow different. Are we to be bullied into submission by the threat of violence by a bunch of extremists? How many exposes about Islam have not been written since Salman Rushdie was targeted for death? And how much political protest will be stifled because you are unwilling to apply evenly the same principles of freedom of expression to all? You're wrong on this one, Susan.

Reply
Report this post

No, Susan isn't wrong.

As an active duty servicemember, I do not appreciate this person's endangering my life and that of every other servicemember. He is yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and Americans like me are going to suffer for it. No, thank you.

Anwar, if were Greeks, African-Americans, Moonies, ______________ (fill in the blank), you would have a problem with what he's doing but because its Muslims, you don't. That speaks volumes about your character. And none of it pretty.

Reply
Report this post

What I find interesting is the huge double-standard at play here. When terrorists commit heinous acts against Americans in the name of Islam (like killing 3000+ people), everyone falls all over themselves to remind us that these few "radicals" do not represent the broader Islamic faith and it's followers. Yet, when one nut-job pseudo-Christian leader and his handful of misguided followers want to burn a Koran or two (an act that would be considered "protected speech" if it were a Bible or Torah), the worldwide Islamic community (you know - those mythical "Moderate Muslims" we always hear about but never see) take to the street, burning the US flag and shouting "Death to America". So it's okay for them to paint us with a broad brush, based on the actions of a few of our radical citizens?!?

Reply
Report this post

History is repeating itself, and showing humanity's fearful ugliest side. I was raised a so-called Christian. Every Sunday we went to church and heard about God's all encompassing unconditional love and forgiveness. And every Sunday my parents went home and behaved exactly the opposite - unkind, judgmental and absolutely unforgiving. Not much has changed in my 50 years I see. Today I will pray for peace, again, and I will not stop.

Reply
Report this post

Oh, Susan. I agree with you 99.99999% of the time, but not now. Of course they have the right. And the press has the right to ignore them, and not give them free publicity. Too late.

Reply
Report this post

But, what if there is a fire?

The first words out of President Obama and Attorney General Holder's mouths should be, "This is an exercise of 1st Amendment rights, and we will defend to the death, their right to do so."

As much as anyone thinks this is disrespectful, unwise, or merely stupid, it is no less disrespectful, unwise, or stupid when other people burn Bibles, Torahs, US Flags, or presidents in effigy. When these acts were performed, they were held up as examples of the strength of our laws and society.

Any action by government officials to stop or impede them can be considered a violation of the Constitution's establishment of religion clause. Why should one religion be given preference over another?

I don't need to burn a Koran, Quran, or how ever you want to spell it, to know that dogmatic followers of it that repress women and brutally punish people with beheadings and stonings are ignorant, human scum.

The large majority of "moderate" Muslims need to start taking a more active and visible role in condemning the alleged minority that are extremists. They should be loudly and visibly expelling them from the faith. Failure to do so only signals tacit approval of muslim extremists' actions.

But, what if there is a fire? I saw it on 9/11/2001.

It's still burning.

Reply
Report this post

Elitists Liberals like Susan Estrich are either (a) ignorant and so full of CRAP that they cannot think logically or (b) intelligent and know what they do but are so morally deficient and lacking in compunction that they have no problems using such intelligence to propagate evil. I am not completely sure which category Susan falls into but I suspect it is category (a) as she seems like a person who wants desperately to do “good”; it is just that Susan seems totally clueless on how to achieve “good”. Unfortunately for Susan and other Elitists Liberals like Susan, in the end, the results of their actions are indistinguishable from the actions of those wishing to do evil. Eventually, I submit, a line is crossed where intentions do not matter, only results. Restated, if one's ignorant actions consistently result in evil being done, one's intentions no longer matter and one becomes their results: evil. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So Terry Jones and the Dove World Outreach Center" have decided to burn some Korans (books). No humans will be injured. In response to such burnings, members of the religion of peace, which include members who murdered over 3000 Americans on 9/11 in the name of the religion of peace, are going to kill Americans. Thus, the Elitists Liberal response is to: trot out the old tired: “One can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater”. WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As already noted, such Liberals in the past have taken the position that burning the American Flag is not hate speech but a perfectly legal activity even though it will offend countless patriotic Americans. Similarly, immersing a Christian symbol, the crucifix, in urine is not hate speech but art, even though it will offend countless number of Christians. Indeed, to liberals, Nazis can march through Skokie and Muslims can build a “cultural center” in the shadow of the World trade center and such is acceptable and anyone who complains is “intolerant.” ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I have said it many times, the biggest challenge one faces in life is to keep evil from making one do evil. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Elitists Liberals fail this test in almost everything they do or promote, either through ignorance or by design. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As we all know, some Muslim organization wishes to build a “cultural center” in the shadow of the World Trade Center. It is known as the “Cordoba Initiative” and the “American Society for Muslim Advancement” and is said to have been conceived in the wake of 9/11 to promote "integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion through arts and culture" based on the Islamic values of "compassion, generosity and respect for all." BULL CRAP. There are over 100 mosques in New York City. The “Cordoba Initiative” is not needed the only reason for this new mosque is to spit in the face of Christians and the American people. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I want to be clear here: I fully support the right of any organization to build any legal structure they can afford to build, where they can afford to build it, including the ground zero mosque. If Muslims wish to spend their money on hate, so be it. What they cannot do is spend their money in hate while contending their actions are for "integration, tolerance of difference and community cohesion through arts and culture" based on the Islamic values of "compassion, generosity and respect for all." If such were true, they would not build their mosque in a place that is offensive to so many Americans and Christians. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Such brings me to Terry Jones and the Dove World Outreach Center's decision to burn some Korans (books). Such is a legal activity no matter what the evil Elitist Liberal will contend. If members of the religion of peace and compassion and generosity and respect for all kill Americans in response to such book burnings, it will not be Terry Jones' fault. I, like Terry, do not give into bullies and never will. If I wish to burn the Koran, I will regardless of any threats. What keeps me from burning the Koran is my moral compass and my resolve to not allow evil make me do evil. Such is why I think Terry should reconsider his actions.

Reply
Report this post

Funny, but the proper way to dispose of the US Flag is to burn it, and the proper way to dispose of a Bible, according to the Catholic Church, is to bury it, or burn it and bury the ashes. A Koran should be wrapped and buried or placed in a flowing river, but as a last resort, it may be burned and the ashes buried or placed in a flowing river.

So, burning can be respect, or it can be protest.

Either way, it's a form of speech, and the right and ability of free speech should be defended above all else, particularly by government officials, who if they have a personal opinion, should keep it to themselves or others may reasonably infer it's policy.

Reply
Report this post

I have been called a liberal and an elitist. However, by no means do I agree with Susan Estrich opinion. Susan Estrich has, like many do, misplaced ownership of actions. IF, the response to Pastor Jones action to exercise his rights (the very right soldiers are fighting for) is that of violence. The people who engage in the violence need to OWN their actions. NO one gets to blame another for their actions.

Reply
Report this post

One of the most destructive aspects of the Koran debate is the reaction it elicits from non-Muslim Americans. It was completely predictable that Rev. Jones' proposal would result in "Death to America" demonstrations. It was completely predictable that liberals would say that burning the Koran goes over the "free speech" line. It was completely predictable that conservatives would accuse such liberals believe it is fine to burn the U.S. flag but not the Koran and are thus giving aid and comfort to the enemy. The problem is that there may be about 10,000 who believe that burning the Koran is a good idea, but well over 10.000,000 who believe there is a double standard at work here -- that Muslims are permitted to invoke the first amendment (cf the "Ground Zero" mosque, but non-Muslims are not. The recriminations almost write themselves. So far, anti-Muslim responses to 9/11 and its MIddle Eastern aftermath have been muted. But Christians and Muslims have a great deal of bad blood between them in their history and it may not take much too much to set them at each other's throats yet again.

Reply
Report this post

Muslims threaten to kill Americans if the Koran is burned. According to Susan, this threat turns an otherwise constitutionally protected act into an illegal action.

By that logic, Americans can make he building of a Mosque at Ground Zero illegal by threatening to kill Muslims if it is built?

Any attempt to excuse Muslims for their intentionally provacative act of building a Mosque at Ground Zero falls on it's face. Any attempt to blame a few people standing around a fire burning Korans for the death of Americans overseas at the hands of Muslims falls on it's face. If logic is so easily abandoned to appease Muslims, the USA falls on it's face.

Reply
Report this post

What a profoundly sad and deluded commentary!
Assuredly Pastor Jones is a jerk and an idiot.
But, Ms. Estrich, your argument seems even more clearly to be the argument an idiot and a hypocrite.
Hypocrite: The test of constitutional speech you proclaims here is: "he [Pastor Jones] does not have the right to endanger American lives." Would you apply this same standard to Daniel Elsberg and the original Pentagon Papers, or to the current wikileaks controversy? Please Susan, a commentary along the same lines about wikileaks. When can we expect that? Tomorrow? Please? We will all be waiting with baited breath for you to prove yourself anything other than the most profound of hypocrites.
Idiot: But worse, your argument puts power in all the wrong hands. It rewards intolerance and hatred. Suppose Pastor Jones' enthusiasts decide they have had enough of liberal double standards, of not playing on a level field? Suppose they decide to use the radical Muslim game book: If someone speaks against the bible, Christ or Christianity, they will kill them. (After all, isn't Christianity, like Islam, a "religion of peace," and isn't that how the radical adherents of religions of peace behave?)
Susan, in such a case will you call for the criminalizing of all offensive (as defined by the most radical Christians) anti-Christian speech ? If you are not willing to invoke such equal opportunity criminalization of speech, are you not a profound bigot and hypocrite guilty of the most disgusting sort of racist hate speech? (If anti-Muslim speech is racist, isn't anti-Christian speech likewise racist?). If you are willing to invoke such "equal respect" for all religions, are you not instructing rabid Christians how to silence anti-Christian speech and digging the grave for our Constitution?
You position only leads to radicalizing all sides and trampling on traditional American freedoms for which many Americans have died and for which many of us are still willing to die. For many Americans, that which we hold most sacred are the very rights you wish to trample and abolish. Given that truth, if the most rabid Constitutionalists both (a) demanded "equal respect" for their dearest values and (b) choose to invoke leftist standards of hypocrisy, then wouldn't your very article suffice to jail you? Isn't sauce for the goose also sauce for the gander.

Reply
Report this post

Don't have a coronary, but I agree with you. All the other writers are correct about free speech, but this act is not about free speech. It is about a religious nut job who wants publicity and the press are acting like lap dogs in
giving him that publicity. To the liberal press, it is also an attact on all those Christian loonies. (I am an Evangelical
Christian. )
Don't give this lunatic any more publicity.
I bet the liberal press will be there with cmaeras blazing. This will be another atrocity.