Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Burn a Bible, Burn a Quran

Prelude:  I am not in favor of burning books.  I am surrounded by books, and I can seldom bring myself to give away the ones I no longer use, let alone burn any of them!  Also, I am a Christian and I know that Islam is a false religion.  That said, I would not burn the Quran for its supposed shock value.  That just seems uncivilized to me.

The main point:  Given the hysterics into which many high government officials have gone recently over some little Nowheresville ‘pastor’ who wants to burn the Quran on 9-11 this year, I have to ask what one pundit asked today, “If the Army can burn Bibles, why can’t civilians burn Qurans?”  Ben Witherington’s comments from last year when the Bible-burning story broke are very good.

According to a report from last year:

Central Command General Order No. 1 specifically forbids “proselytizing of any faith, religion or practice” and is to be strongly enforced in sectors which are predominantly Muslim, for fear such material distribution will be taken as an attempt on behalf of the U.S. to proselytize and convert the local people.

Here’s a little news flash for Hillary Clinton and all the other ‘high officials’ who are having a fit over the would-be Quran-burners:  We have this little thing (speaking of things labeled “1”) we call Amendment No. One to the U. S. Constitution.  It guarantees the right of political and religious expression, things like burning Qurans.  There are no stated exceptions for the stupidity of the expression involved.

Christians didn’t kill anyone or even think of doing so when the Army burned Bibles.  If Muslims murder because someone, somewhere, burns a Quran, perhaps that just says something about some Muslims versus all Christians.

2 comments:

Scriptures for the Home said...

Harold, I wonder about "expression." The 1st ammendment states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I see freedom of SPEECH, but I don't see freedom of EXPRESSION. But I would venture to say that the forefathers, had they used the trem expression would not imply what is often met by it today. We, in the defilement of our constitution, have turned freedom of speech into freedom of expression... to justify ANY actions. I don't see this as their (forefathers) intent. They were trying to ensure that people cour freely practice their religion AND not fear being persecuted (killed) for speaking out against the government. Today, what we have is a justification of any immoral or indecent act to take place (in public) and we justify it under "freedom of expression." I don't know if i'm splitting hairs, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

Kent B. True - perhaps one Harold N. Orndorff, Jr. said...

I agree that not everything is an act of expression. But symbolic destruction certainly could be. I don't think it stretches the First Amendment to include these kinds of symbolic methods of communicating in the things that are protected there.