Tuesday, September 7, 2010

CRASH: Every Sane Person Opposes Burning Books

In another in a reported series of whacked-out publicity stunts, some un-Christian "minister" is planning a Koran barbecue this weekend.  Every man, woman, and child in America should deplore this fool.

Just as I deplore the dogged insistence of the Cordoba House provocateurs to put their mosque/base of operations for Jihad within sight of the place victim's remains are still being recovered, I deplore and condemn a so-called Christian provoking anybody by burning something...anything...they revere.

In a simple WWJD test, this is impossible to countenance.  It is approaching the obscene...and certainly profanes the ideals of Christ.

It is ALSO cravenly selfish, as it WILL inflame Muslims world-wide.  If history is any teacher, lives will be lost.  At least one American military leader has asked that it not be done, citing the positive danger it will bring his troops.

Regardless of their religious beliefs...or complete lack of them...Americans DO NOT BURN BOOKS.  Especially the sacred texts of ANY religion.


  1. Imagine for a minute if he had covered it in feces and placed in a jar of urine. Would the press be outraged?

    I agree than book burning is never an appropriate action and disrespecting another religion is the antithesis of Christian teaching.

    However, using the argument that doing so will put lives in danger is just ridiculous. All that does is tell our enemies that we will bend to their demands if they promise not to hurt us.

  2. I agree with John wholeheartedly except in rergard to his statement that "book burning is never an appropriate action." Book burning or any other action regarding an object belonging to yourself is completely within your rights as owner of that property.
    It's time for people to shut their mouths about being offended by the actions of others within their rights.
    Islam, and particularly radical Islam, is one of the chief offenders in this regard

  3. Wow. Guys, I'm dismayed by these comments.

    First, there are MANY things that no law keeps me...and I hope YOU...from doing. All perfectly within our rights, and all that. If the law were my only limit, I would be a VERY, VERY dangerous person.

    You have a right to burn whatever belongs to you...up to a point, of course.

    That NEVER makes it a good or even acceptable idea.

    And deploring a cheap-assed publicity stunt is NOT a concession to Muslim sensibility. It ISN'T about them, as much as it is about us.

    Living as we do is an affront to SOME Muslims. TS. But can you not differentiate THAT from the KNOWING and certainly INTENTIONAL provocation of burning their sacred text as a STUNT?

    Another notion is that there is a VAST difference between an act that is a DELIBERATE provocation, and one that merely is part of our culture (such as lampooning a figure in a cartoon).

    Finally, there is the simple atmospherics of burning books. Stupid, stupid, stupid...and you can chant all the libertarian goo you want about it being "nobody's business". If you are doing it PUBLICLY as a crass stunt, you heap crap on people associated with you.

    In this case, that would be Christians, the Right, etc. We don't live in some theoretical sphere where only ideals rule.

    Sorry to break that to you.

  4. This is absolutely a publicity stunt and only serves to allow morons to paint Christians with a broad brush.

    The part I object to is how the media is playing up Petraeus' comment about putting lives in danger as if we should instantly appease for that purpose alone.

    This is pretty much the same argument as the Ground Zero Mosque and flag burning. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Sure, it's 100% legal, but the act says more about the person committing it than anything else.

  5. John, I can't fault Petraeus for his comments.

    A BIG part of a counter-insurgency operation is PR. We can't pretend that isn't true, or that even more tractable Afghans would not be inflamed by this kind of deliberate provocation. Like I said above, I see a distinction between accommodation and NOT provoking. As a kid, I fought bullies when they were bullying (I have the broken teeth still). I didn't call their sisters names though.

  6. My issue isn't with Petraeus, it's with the media. They need to report that this is wrong and disgraceful and that most Americans feel that way, not that our only concern is whether Muslims will be offended and try to kill American troops.

    Have they polled this issue? Wouldn't explaining that the majority of Americans disagree with this do more to limit the damage than making it appear that our only concern is not getting shot at?

    There will always be some jackass doing something provocative for attention somewhere. It's best to show that we stand for principle and not against consequence.

  7. "My issue isn't with Petraeus, it's with the media. They need to report that this is wrong and disgraceful and that most Americans feel that way, not that our only concern is whether Muslims will be offended and try to kill American troops."

    Bullseye John. But a step further - when I see Christians acting like idiots in the name of Christ it makes me angry. Why does this moron in a cheap polyester suit spouting non-Christian dogma warrant international media attention? I know of no Christian who agrees with or approves of this cretin - yet in the MSM world it is illustrative of Christian ignarance and bigotry.

    The Wrong Reverend Jones is already way over his 15 minutes. Next.

  8. "If the law were(sic) my only limit, I would be a VERY, VERY dangerous person."
    How so?

  9. My "guess" is you can't answer the question.

  10. Opsie...You guessed WRONG.

    The law is a very weak limit on the conduct of people. There is a very broad range of things I do not do because of my own code, that no law constrains.


  11. "...a very broad range of things..."
    What things in this very broad range would make you a VERY, VERY dangerous person?

  12. Just so you know...every person is a very, very dangerous person, with a capacity for evil meeting or exceeding _______ [fill in your favorite dictator, despot or democrat] It's called humanity, I think. Maybe something with more sylables.

  13. swede said, ..."every person is a very, very dangerous person,...It's called humanity, I think...."
    I think swede is very, very paranoid.