...a minor crackpot has, thanks to the miracle of the Internet and far-less-wondrous effect of cable television news*, managed to have a global impact -- and a potentially lethal one at that. ... Jones's kookiness is not about space aliens or the UN's black helicopters -- or even the evils of Jews or Christians. If it were, we would have never heard of him. Instead, it is Islam he is maligning -- and that explains both the reaction of the media and of statesmen from Obama on down.Jackson Deihl of the WaPo gets a lot of things correct, and especially his closing note that most of the blame for "rage" in the Islamic world belongs to those "Muslim leaders who seize on any pretext to foment anti-Western violence." As I said elsewhere, those who do not wish to be mollified won't be; and Imams must thank Allah 5 times a day for idiots like Terry Jones.He makes their job much easier.
That said, Deihl still misses a couple of major points that tie in with his correct assertion that the press would not have paid any attention to this except that it dealt with Islam. The lesser point is that the left (to which the press generally belongs) is really not afraid of Christians and Jews. And there's good reason for that. Let's say that there are 200 million Christians in the US**. What percent of them taking gun in hand would it take to shut down the nation's 750 abortion clinics? The fact that one abortion doctor in the last 5 years has been murdered is proof that all the noise about "Christian Taliban" and the like is just leftist noise. They can ignore - or commit - offenses against Christians because they know Christians are not going to kill them over, for example, crucifixes in urine. But the left does not know how to deal with Islam - which really does take gun in hand at such provocations - so they defer to it as much as possible.
But the second point is more important: the uber-smart left in America thinks of Americans generally as idiot racist trash. You heard about the rising tide of Islamophobia**** in America - it was in all the papers - yet you might have wondered why you missed it in your own neighborhood. Well, you didn't see it because it's crap. It doesn't exist. If there was anything remotely resembling a tide of Islamophobia, the 78.4% Christian population would wipe out the 0.6% Muslim population in about 5 minutes. That some people are upset about a mosque at Ground Zero is not a tide. That a cabbie got stabbed in New York City is not a tide. It's barely a ripple in a shot glass. It's not news. But in order to make it news, the press made news of the first piece of idiot trash they could find, a pastor of a church of 4 dozen people, as an "example" of this rising tide.
The Press created Terry Jones. They created Terry Jones to illustrate racist trash America, and they convinced a Muslim population willing to believe it (or at least whose leadership is willing to use it) that there is a rising tide of hate here aimed at them. When a similar tide rolls over Christians elsewhere, or over American soldiers elsewhere, Terry Jones will have blood on his hands. But the press will be crimson up to their shoulders.
* Unlike the ultra-responsible Washington Post, which only has 45 articles mentioning him on their website.
** It's 78.4% of adult Americans***, to be exact.
*** plus Obama.
**** Though this article on CNN.com is to be commended as the exception that proves the rule.
View Bill Hoyt's profile
Posts
9 comments:
When a similar tide rolls over Christians elsewhere
and? what would your point be? as long as Jones is pointing out the truth, that the 'religion of peace' is a bunch of murderous, Satanic lunatics i don't understand the problem.
the 'Christians' being 'rolled over' should be pointing out the exact same thing.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:10-13&version=KJV
The comment I heard today on the Diane Rehm show (normally a reasonably level-headed bit of listening) was that the only reason the press made such a deal out of Pastor Nutcase was because Petraeus et al. mentioned him, and anything they say in public is automatically news. Funny, I would've sworn the sequence was a little different, but then, this administration is showing a tendency for having to put its two cents in on anything potentially controversial (can you say Dept. of Agriculture? I knew you could) that would almost be charming if they weren't, you know, in charge of all those nukes. It must be the Biden influence.
as long as Jones is pointing out the truth...
And that's a good answer; to the extent that it's complete I have no argument. But it's not complete: we must remember that the flip side of Matt 5:10 is Matt 18:7.
There is the small issue of acts as speech - is the act of burning the Koran is simple statement of the truth (both meant and perceived that way, like writing a book proving that Mohammad is a false prophet) or is it something more?
Secondly, assuming it is no more and no less than the truth, is the primary reason for telling that truth that it be known or that it be painful?
For example, let's say your mom was ugly. If I said to you that she was, obviously I'm telling the truth, and if I told you because you didn't know and it was important, it's cool. I might even being saving you or her some embarrassment or helping her to overcome it. But if I told you she was ugly for the purpose of putting you down or enraging you, then truth is not a defense, it's being used as an offense.
If I tell you that your mom is ugly to make you mad and it makes you so mad you kick your dog, did I kick your dog? No, you did. Am I in a small way responsible for your dog's pain? I would say that I am, for I have put into effect a series of events that resulted in you kicking your dog. My part is the same even if you are a habitual dog kicker.
Don't get me wrong: Jones' part in any violence that results from this is small: those who use this as an excuse for violence are responsible for their acts. But while it is necessary that offenses come, the promised woe is to *all* through whom they come, unless they are telling exactly the truth and for the purpose that the truth be known.
we must remember that the flip side of Matt 5:10 is Matt 18:7.
yeah, i think you might want to read for context here:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2018:1-9&version=NKJV
now, what part of verse 6 does the 'offense' preached against in verse 7 consist of?
and which religion is it that teaches 5 year olds to glorify the murder of Jews and stabbing murder of Theo van Gogh and the beheading of Daniel Pearl and to dance in the streets at the destruction of the Twin Towers and on and on and on?
things that make you go, "hmmmmm".
There's also a broader context that needs to be considered as well El B. For example, how did God typically react when kings or leaders in the Old Testament tore down and destroyed monuments, altars and sacred objects to other gods? To use a couple of examples from the New Testament, how did Jesus react when he saw the moneychangers inside the temple, despite the fact that they clearly operated with the implicit or explicit sanction of the current religious authorities?
To be clear though, utilizing what wisdom I have, I can only mark this event down in the gray area. On the one hand, we have examples of God being pleased with faithful followers destroying objects that would or have lead his people astray and caused them grief. The Bible says that he is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, which means that the same Father that sent his Son to die on the cross is the same Lord and King who judged and punished Israel and Judah when they did evil acts against their covenant with him, which included the worship and use of objects that were sacred to other gods and blasphemous to the Almighty.
The real question I'm asking (and I apologize if I rambled a bit) is can we honestly say God is displeased by this action, assuming the pastor goes through with it?
Based on my own judgment, I don't have any reason to believe that God would rebuke anyone for this act. That's my best reasoning based on the available evidence I have.*
*I hope I managed to communicate my point. I sometimes have trouble doing so effectively when I know what I'm trying to say but have a difficult time finding a coherent way of expressing it.
Would God approve of burning the Koran??? What the h not?
What do you suppose God's highest value is, multiculturalism, or truth?
Does God want you to stand up for what is good? Does God want you to sit idly by while evil sweeps the land?
This pastor is not racist trash. Far from it. He is an American hero. And possibly a Christian hero as well.
When have you ever faced down death threats for what is right?
bob k. mando" yeah, i think you might want to read for context here…
But it’s not a question of context as much as it is of a principle. It may be a great glory for the Christian for someone to kill him. One might even argue that his killer is doing him a great celestial favor (which is what I took you to mean when you said you “don’t understand the problem”), but that does not change the fact that it is an offense – it’s still murder. It may be necessary that such offenses come – Jesus says that we Christians are to expect them – but still woe to those who do that do them. I agree about your statements about Islam, this is in no way a defense of it. But is there no moral culpability for purposeful incitement to do those things?
You will notice that nowhere have I said that pastor ought not burn a Koran, or that the act is wrong, or that it will displease God. Maybe God has told him to, and even if not, I’m am not going to deny a man his rights if he is set on exercising them. But let us not pretend that they are without consequence no matter (or especially because of) how evil Islam is.
Zion's Paladin said... how did God typically react when kings or leaders in the Old Testament tore down and destroyed monuments, altars and sacred objects to other gods?
It’s a good question. Now, how did Paul treat the altars of Athens? This is why I stated in another place that the only person liable to get any good from this is a convert from Islam (Acts 19:19). There is a qualitative difference between a King who is held liable for the spiritual health of his people breaking down the false altars that his people use and a pastor half a world away from those people burning a symbolic representation of their false religion. Paul could have made a religious case for ripping down Athens’ pagan altars, yet he did not do so.
The real question I'm asking (and I apologize if I rambled a bit) is can we honestly say God is displeased by this action, assuming the pastor goes through with it?
No, we cannot be sure, because we cannot see the pastor’s heart, which is what God sees. If he’s doing it for truth (or in obedience to God) blessings on him. If he’s doing it to be a dick, then God might judge the act differently.
My take on this is that the pastor never meant for it to get this far – that he was, in fact, making a small point* and was used by the media to make a different, larger one. I don’t agree with the latter point and by elevating this pastor for what I consider nefarious purposes they are also inciting. That does not excuse the rioters (just because someone incites, it does not mean another has to be incited), but actions have consequences.
Justin:
What do you suppose God's highest value is, multiculturalism, or truth?
Of course the answer is truth, but you ought to know by now that I don’t give a damn about multiculturalism, either, nor does this post have anything to do with it.
* which is why he didn't do it in, say, Kabul
"You will notice that nowhere have I said that pastor ought not burn a Koran, or that the act is wrong, or that it will displease God."
compare and contrast to this statement, with which it seems you disagree:
"Imams must thank Allah 5 times a day for idiots like Terry Jones.He makes their job much easier."
"But is there no moral culpability for purposeful incitement to do those things?"
perhaps you could enumerate what are NOT 'purposeful incitements' unto Islam?
that list would surely be far shorter than all of the actions that you would prohibit to kafirs ( you and me and Salman Rushdie ) around the globe.
it seems, also, that you continue to misread the obvious point of the very verse you quoted.
answer these two questions please:
1 - to whom was offense being given?
2 - what action was giving offense?
while you ponder your answers to the above, i present this news story for your edification:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/09/pakistan-13-year-old-hindu-girl-kidnapped-from-house-forced-to-convert-to-islam-police-wont-pursue-c.html
but actions have consequences.
speaking the Truth to sinners about their sins is an action. the persecution of the speaker by the sinner is the consequence.
those for whom this is too much to handle have quite an easy out: recite the Shahada ... just as Obama did on national television.
it might also do you good to investigate the Islamic portrayal of what characteristics they expect their "Christ" figure to have during the End Times/Revelation period.
it is both quite illuminating and clearly intentional that they refer to him as a 'Beast'.
...compare and contrast to this statement, with which it seems you disagree...
To seem is not to be, my friend. In both posts and numerous comments I have made it clear that I do not oppose him doing it.
His idiocy is another issue. Frankly, I consider him a bully who never expected his boast to be called. It was called, and he canceled the burning, then put it back on, then traveled to NY in an attempt to tie it to the Ground Zero mosque, then called it off. Maybe it's back on now, I neither know nor really care. Fred Phelps is going to burn a Koran today if that's really the issue.
Idiot may not be the best word for that. "Squish" might be far better. "Naif" works as well. The idiot point is that he chose to undertake an act without counting the cost. Jesus might have a story about that somewhere...
The Christian must be willing to die for the truth. Are those of you who stood up for this act as Truth-with-a-capital-T going to condemn Jones as a liar now that he has given up the act? If the act was Truth, are *you* going to stand in the gap? Or was this whole act a bit of emotional melodrama?
perhaps you could enumerate what are NOT 'purposeful incitements' unto Islam?
While Islam may become incited, preaching the gospel to a Muslim is not a purposeful incitement to Islam, because Islam is not the issue, Jesus is. But burning a Koran /= preaching the Gospel, as Hindus can (and do) perform the same act.
answer these two questions please:
1 - to whom was offense being given?
2 - what action was giving offense?
Gladly, though I doubt you'll glean anything from my answers that I have not already given.
1) a believer, especially a small/weak/childish one. 2) the opposite of "receive" in v5, which could take on many forms, not limited to undermining belief and trust in God.
But v7 is a general principle of which v6 serves as one example; it is not limited to v6. "Offenses must come" applies as well to the martyrdom of mature believers as it does to the deception of immature ones.
those for whom this is too much to handle have quite an easy out: recite the Shahada ... just as Obama did on national television.
I trust you'll write a letter to Pastor Jones letting him know where he can find it in his yet unburned Koran?
Post a Comment