Jimmie at The Sundries Shack makes an interesting observation about how the feds are required to handle the Koran:
[I]t must be treated “like a fragile piece of delicate art”, and that no such policy exists for the most sacred book of any other religion….That caused me to ask myself why our self-appointed First Amendment guardians aren’t all over this? Where are Barry Lynn and the ACLU and the other usual suspects?I mean, it sure seems to me that a special set of rules that applies only to the Koran would seem like a pretty obvious violation of the First Amendment….In fairness, First Amendment originalists like me would likely say that what the Pentagon has done doesn’t violate the First Amendment because it’s not actually Congress (you know, that whole “Congress shall make no law…†phrase). But that’s not been the way our courts have decided to interpret the Establishment clause in the past 30 years or so.
We have to pick and choose our battles in this life, and this is one fight I’ll gladly pass by…after I’ve had my say.
God tells us that the words in the Bible are written in the hearts of believers. The ink and paper are only a vehicle, how those words are transmitted, but the book itself is not a sacred object. God is the one who receives reverence, not any physical thing. Not a cross, not a crucifix, not a picture, not a book…nothing. Object worship is forbidden in Christianity.
There was an Old Testament admonition against the “unclean thing,” both physically and spiritually. Israel, as God’s chosen people, were to live apart from others in the land. They were not to mix with unbelievers and had to avoid them. Under the ceremonial law, they had to wash themselves and objects they were handling. Certain things were to be avoided altogether as unclean, such as dead bodies and blood. Whoever touched them had to cleanse themselves and remain separated from the people for a time.
The ceremonial laws, like many commands in the Old Testament, were signs pointing to the work of Christ. When Christ came, he’d separate believers and unbelievers spritiually, not physically. Believers today should still avoid physical uncleanliness, like fornication and drunkenness, and churches that have fallen into apostasy. But we’re no longer required to avoid physical objects or live apart from unbelievers. Jesus himself ate with “unclean” sinners and was castigated by the “religious” Jews for it.
Our separateness is spiritual. For instance, believers are not to marry unbelievers or partner with them in “spiritual” ventures, such as forming a church or counseling center, for example. We are in the world but not of it. Unlike the Israelites of the Old Testament, today’s believers are commissioned to proselytize, to share the Gospel with the world.
Physical objects are not to revered or worshiped, and they hold no “sacred” power. Islam obviously teaches something entirely different. I think it’s ridiculous for the United States to cater to prisoners of war in this way, no matter what their religion. But I don’t run anything except this blog.
My God’s words live in my heart, and no one and no thing can remove or “defile” them. I’d probably cringe if I saw someone tearing pages from a Bible and stuffing them in a toilet, but my concern for the physical object ends there. The person’s spiritual condition is infinitely more important.
Update: Read Why Islam is disrespected.
{ 5 trackbacks }
{ 46 comments }
Civilized Muslims do not riot when Christians “desecrate” the Koran.
At the same time, most of the rituals surrounding the Koran and being “unclean” are taken from the Bible some Islamists hate.
If a CBS “journalist” is shooting at you…..They might be the enemy. If Dan Rather is committing fraud to overthrow the President……He might be the enemy. If Newsweak continually distorts it’s already questionable selection of information to dis-honor the military….. they might be the enemy. Get the point? The legacy media is the offspring of Soviet agents planted here during the cold war to aid usefull idiots like Jane Fonda. They took over the universities, then the public schools, then the media and were on their way to taking over our Judiciary system! They walk on eggshells around the Koran. They change rules of the English language to further elevate this book; Quran…..Qu’ran……Qua’ran……..Yet they treat Christains like retarded criminals! The enemy media will puff up Islam because most Americans see Islam as nonsense (Sorry) We don’t see a “religion of peace” hijacked. We see a bunch of screaming, sexually repressed, maniacs trying to return the world to the twelfth century. We don’t see many Muslims crying out against the Muslim Terrorists.
The real enemy of the evil media is Christianity. By elevating Islam above Christianity the media asks us to choose which is “right”. The logical conclusion is that NEITHER is! Because by definition both can’t be! So there really is no God! Man is God! And what MEN are most Godlike? Why Liberals, of course!
“The legacy media is the offspring of Soviet agents planted here during the cold war to aid usefull idiots like Jane Fonda. They took over the universities, then the public schools, then the media and were on their way to taking over our Judiciary system!”
I love the smell of paranoia in the afternoon!
The irony is that whatever “we” see of Islam comes through that apparently communist inspired media you hate so much. Just as one ferinstance of how perceptions have changed, do you remember how brave Chechen freedom fighters became Islamic terrorists post 9/11?
La Shawn – you’ve put your finger on why there are different rules for handling the Bible and the Koran. Most Christians do not get worked up about the Bible as a physical object. Muslims think of their holy book in a different way, so we handle it in such a way as not to cause offence to them. In exactly the same way, when I enter a mosque I take off my shoes as they do. Paul’s advice to the Corinthians is relevant: “Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks, or the church of God…” (1 Cor 10: 32)
The Koran is a book, nothing more. I agree with you, La Shawn. It does seem like object worship. I find the whole situation quite bizarre.
La Shawn, Islam and Christianity are not mirror opposites. Christians, as you point out, do not worship or treat the physcial Bible the same way Muslims treat the Qu’ran. Trying to apply the same standards is not reasonable in this case. Just as Imams are not the same as Priests, treatment of the Qu’ran is not the same as treatment of the Bible.
Spot on! Great thoughts!
What a great way for me to start my day, thanks La Shawn!
Richard, that was an admonition for individual believers, not the government. It’s one I heed because of my duty as a Christian to be light to the world and obedient to God. I don’t recall writing or implying that Christians should disrespect Muslims and flush the Koran down a toilet.
doverspa said; “Islam and Christianity are not mirror opposites.”
Mankind has always been given free will by God to choose and worship either Him through Christ Jesus, or choose the world through the worship of everything from a golden calf to the Hummer in the driveway. That personal choice will determine one’s eternal salvation or damnation, a stark and ominous “opposite”.
Besides the obvious differences between the Bible and the Koran, there is one that stands out: Muslims believe that the Koran is the *real, actual word of God*. They believe that God spoke Arabic directly to Mohammed, who transcribed God’s words into the Koran. This is why many Muslims believe that Arabic is the only *real* language in which to study the Koran; translations must be considered flawed and unreliable. Thus the Koran really is more like an icon and less a “book” in the sense we Westerners understand it.
Which does not excuse the rioters, of course. Rioting over the rumor of the desecration of a book (even a supposedly holy one) is a savage and backward act.
La Shawn:
Your post is great! We live in a time when the ACLU and the MSM are engaged in a jihad to remove all traces of the Ten Commandments from public buildings. The requirement for the feds to handle the Koran with dignity and respect is jarring when considered in the present political climate. Or maybe not – the feds might just be reacting to avoid media criticism and to protect themselves from possible future lawsuits.
I do not think that Newsweek’s story was motivated by any concern for the religious sensibilities of Muslims. I have yet to see any evidence of religious belief in the MSM beyond self-adoration.
You may notice that Newsweek wasn’t the one that made this observation.
Newsweek (to my knowledge) hasn’t gone out of their way to report how much we’ve gone to show respect towards Islamic detainees (providing the Koran and many other things).
It was Newsweek that goes out of their way to spike certain stories or not report some things but goes out of their way to report others.
La Shawn’s point is very well taken. Why would anyone want to report the story Newsweek did even if it did happen. Standing on principle of REPORTING the TRUTH is not an option if you are spiking some stories and rushing on others. So what was the motivation for Newsweek?
Let’s mull over the options:
1) To free the detainees?
2) To embarrass the Bush administration?
3) To hurt America’s reputation?
4) To get the “alleged” actions to stop?
It couldn’t be #4 because there are so many other ways to do #4. To which a journalist says writing is the only thing at their disposal. So why doesn’t the journalist look at the big picture perspective and report that truth. Why do they go out of their way to pick and print half truths and misinformation and rumors? Their HAS to be a MOTIVATION or agenda on their part.
Fortunately for Bloggers and other outlets for conservatives this is obvious stuff to anyone with common sense. Fortunately, the leftists in the dominant media don’t realize to what extremes they LOOK like they are having to go through to those of us with common sense. If they realized they’d be more sneaky about it instead of the constant erroneous drumbeat daily (with their writings).
And why doesn’t Newseek even touch stories about what extreme Islamists are doing to Christians in other countries or doing to the bible or doing to Buddhist statues?
If Newsweek has I apologize but I just haven’t known Newsweek as a magazine to turn to for the good big picture perspective.
Good job, LaShawn.
I can’t remember where I heard this story – church, perhaps – but I heard about a man who was in prison and was using the pages of a Bible to roll cigarettes. One day, though, something caught his attention; it happened to be in the Gospel of John. He kept reading, and was saved as a result!
Also, you do such a fine job of explaining Christian values and understandings. I think even non-Christians could benefit greatly from your writings in these areas.
Scott McClellan was asked questions by the hostile anti-administration press (not saying I agree with the president on all issues but the disdain is obvious). The subject of how the Koran is handled was touched on.
Q. Scott, you said that the retraction by Newsweek magazine of its story is a good first step. What else does the President want this American magazine to do?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, it’s what I talked about yesterday. This report, which Newsweek has now retracted and said was wrong, has had serious consequences. People did lose their lives. The image of the United States abroad has been damaged; there is lasting damage to our image because of this report. And we would encourage Newsweek to do all that they can to help repair the damage that has been done, particularly in the region.
And I think Newsweek can do that by talking about the way they got this wrong, and pointing out what the policies and practices of the United States military are when it comes to the handling of the Holy Koran. The military put in place policies and procedures to make sure that the Koran was handled — or is handled with the utmost care and respect. And I think it would help to point that out, because some have taken this report — those that are opposed to the United States — some have taken this report and exploited it and used it to incite violence.
Q. With respect, who made you the editor of Newsweek? Do you think it’s appropriate for you, at that podium, speaking with the authority of the President of the United States, to tell an American magazine what they should print?
MR. McCLELLAN: I’m not telling them. I’m saying that we would encourage them to help –
Q. You’re pressuring them.
Q. Back on Newsweek. Richard Myers, last Thursday — I’m going to read you a quote from him. He said, “It’s a judgment of our commander in Afghanistan, General Eichenberry, that in fact the violence that we saw in Jalalabad was not necessarily the result of the allegations about disrespect for the Koran.” He said it was “more tied up in the political process and reconciliation that President Karzai and his cabinet were conducting.” And he said that that was from an after-action report he got that day.
So what has changed between last Thursday and today, five days later, to make you now think that those — that that violence was a result of Newsweek?
Q. Q Let me follow up on that. What — you said that — what specifically are you asking Newsweek to do? I mean, to follow up on Terry’s question, are you saying they should write a story? Are you going that far? How else can Newsweek, you know, satisfy you here?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, as I said, we would encourage them to continue working diligently to help repair the damage that has been done because of this –
Q. Are you asking them to write a story?
MR. McCLELLAN: — because of this report. I think Newsweek is going to be in the best position to determine how to achieve that. And there are ways that I pointed out that they can help repair the damage. One way is to point out what the policies and practices of our United States military are. Our United States military personnel go out of their way to make sure that the Holy Koran is treated with care –
Q. Are you asking them to write a story about how great the American military is; is that what you’re saying here?
MR. McCLELLAN: Elisabeth, let me finish my sentence. Our military –
Q. You’ve already said what you’re — I know what — how it ends.
Q. As far as the Newsweek article is concerned, first, how and where the story came from? And do you think somebody can investigate if it really happened at the base, and who told Newsweek? Because somebody wrote a story.
MR. McCLELLAN: I think Newsweek has talked about it. They took it –
Q. And second thing is that it’s not only Newsweek story. In the past, well-known people who can make and break a society, they make statements against other religions, like Mr. Pat Robertson against Hinduism in the past. How can we prepare for the future all these stories, it doesn’t happen again in the future? Do you think the President can come out and make sure, because that’s what the Muslims are calling on the President to come out –
The first amendment, allows private American citizens to burn a bible, the Koran, the American flag, etc as a form of protest or expression. The government can instate a law however forbidding that activity as used when dealing with prisoners of war. I wouldn’t necessarily expect Christians to have the same understanding of the sacredness of the actual object; As a Jew it makes perfect sense (and thus leads me to further question this silly “Judeo-Christian” label that is thrown around without consideration). It is Jewish tradition that if a prayer book (sidur) is dropped and touches the ground, that you kiss the front cover when you pick it up. A damaged Torah is not destroyed, but buried in the ground. Jews do not worship these objects, but recognize their sanctity because they contain the word of G-d. Just because your tradition does not contain the same ideas, does not make another’s religion less correct or spiritual for them. Personally I’m also furious that the government has reported been using the Israeli flag in their interrogation of prisoners to somehow demean them. People are up in arms over the burning of American flags, but the army would use another nation’s flag as a simple rag and no one raises a single voice.
Joshua here is the first amendment again.
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.
While it may not be “respecting an establishment of religion” to make special laws on how to handle the Koran over any other book, I think it’s coming very close and at LEAST is not equal treatment under the law. We should at least have equal treatment as a standard and we should explain that until we are blue in the face.
Christians are absolutely told not to worship the Bible. Only God is to be revered.
Matthew 6:24: “No man can serve two masters.”
That really says it all for me. Plus, all the stuff that comes after, about false idols, false prophets, and idol worship.
Sad that we now have to engage in idol worship, via our “special handling” of the Koran.
And that’s exactly what’s being promoted here: As a Christian, I, as a practicing Christian, am supposed to engage in idol worship by protecting the Koran, and treating it reverence.
Then again, I feel the same way about “sacred ground” ie Indian Reservations, totem poles etc…
Why am I required to give all that stuff any special regard?
I’ve often wondered why it’s ok to put up a totem pole on Government property, yet the Ten Commandments are illegal?????
All I have to add is, Well Said ;~)
I was a soldier in the United States Army and an arabic linguist. I was in charge of dealing with Arabs for over 14 years of my life. As a Christian, I have no overt love of the arab culture. First we will deal with hypocrisy. When I was in Saudi Arabia, I asked a Saudi national why cars in their country travel 100mph instead of the legal 60 mph in the city. He responded that if God wanted you to die, you would die. Therefore the speed that you are traveling at has no bearing.
I thought this was an interesting philosophy. Every night at the gold markets during prayer time, the arab shop keepers would pull down huge gates over their stores’ doors. I asked the same arab why they did this. It was to keep out the burglars while the shop keepers went to the temple. “But” I responded “if God wanted for the gold to be stolen, then why should we try to stop it.”
Obviously, hypocrisy is a matter of convenience. During the 2004 campaign season, there were a series of notices and statements in the church that if Kerry was elected, the Federal Government would take away Christian’s Bibles. Honestly, there was no truth to this rumor but large numbers of Christians railed against this attack upon Christianity. Honestly, as a Christian, I was angry. Anyone taking my Bible would find themselves on the wrong end of a shotgun.
Was my sensitivity to my Bible used against me to get a vote-probably. I am uncomfortable condemning any culture’s love for their religious text. I think that these Muslims were wrong but at least I can understand their fear, their anger. I cannot be a hypocrit on this issue.
I agree that the second covenant places the law upon our hearts. Whereas God’s Word is sacred to me, the Bible should be a physical object; having no real relevance. Nonetheless, watching someone burn a Bible or flush it down the toilet would anger me beyond belief. Because of my belief, I empathize with the Muslems. I think they are wrong but I can empathize.
The media on the other hand have treated this with an inordinate amount of insensitivity. This added to the fact that everyone wants to jump on Newsweek to help their ratings is additional hypocrisy. It was a story with little to no concrete support. It was yellow journalism. For other new agencies to pretend that they are somehow beyond this is a falsehood.
Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post is telling us that from Guantanamo, there are “(confirmed) reports that prisoners themselves used Korans to block toilets as a form of protest.”
In his press briefing last May 12, Gen. Myers said this:
They have looked through the logs, the interrogation logs, and they can not confirm yet that there was ever the case of the toilet, except for one case, a log entry which they still have to confirm, where a detainee was reported by a guard to be ripping pages out of a Koran and putting them in the toilet to stop it up as a protest, but not where the U.S. did it.”
Mwalimu Daudi wrote, “We live in a time when the ACLU and the MSM are engaged in a jihad to remove all traces of the Ten Commandments from public buildings.”
I don’t know about MSM or jihad, but I agree with the ACLU that Ten Commandment iconography does not belong in public buildings — especially judicial buildings.
Jews, Catholics, and Protestants don’t even agree on what the Ten Commandments are. They group and number the commandments differently. Whichever “Ten Commandments” are selected, they will be the “Ten Commandments” for only one of these three great religious groups. The other two will be excluded.
Hindus believe in multiple gods. If a Hindu is a defendant in a lawsuit, and she walks into a courtroom that says “I am the Lord your God; you shall have no other gods before me” how is she going to feel? Will she feel that the court is on a level, when the sign on the court favors a Judeo-Christian one-god against her belief in multiple gods?
There are good reasons that the framers of our constitution put a prohibition of establishment of religion in the First Amendment in our Bill of Rights. This is America! All religions are welcome! There is no state religion! That means no Ten Commandments iconography on public buildings, especially courts.
Respectfully,
Richard Hall
Calling me paranoid doesn’t counter the facts. I like to show proper respect to religious symbols like removing shoes in a temple. Duh!
I don’t understand the Chechan reference. So the media is not liberal communist because they have showed us “news” of Islam….? We should elevate the Islam book over the Christian book because Muslims like it that way….? Please! If you dispute the fact that nearly all top government offices were infiltrated by paid Soviet agents during the cold war I’d suggest getting your history from someone other than the MSM.
I would have responded sooner but I saw Star Wars! ( for Lashawn!)
This is important. If Muslims believe that the Koran is God’s presence here on earth, then we must treat it as such in their presence.
As a Roman Catholic, I would be incensed to hear of a defilement of a consecrated Host, if it were done deliberately to upset Catholics.
However Christianity is a religion emphasizing peace. It would be especially unseemly to kill another person to protect the Host. Jesus is just as present in that person (Catholic or not) as He is in the Host. To kill another person, except in self defense, is simply wrong.
By the way, therein lies the crux of the problem of Capital Punishment for us. Is it self-defense or not? I cannot imagine a deadly Catholic riot started by the desecration of the Host in a distant country, even before Catholic prisoners.
pb
Anomalocaris,
Taking your logic, our government shouldn’t even be giving the detainees a Koran.
The First Amendment doesn’t say that there should be no religion in public buildings. It says the government can’t prohibit the freedom of exercise nor create laws respecting an establishment of religion.
It has only been recently in the last few decades that people have tried to interpret the first amendment as a way to eradicate religion from our view (as if offensive).
Just let it be. Move on. Don’t go trying to take away our freedoms to exercise. There are WAY MORE THINGS to be offended of than the Ten Commandments.
ABOVE QUOTE: “Jews, Catholics, and Protestants don’t even agree on what the Ten Commandments are. They group and number the commandments differently.” —–Anomalocaris
That is completely untrue. Bible variations are due to the different translations ie King James Version, New American, New International etc… The Bible is the same; it’s the various translations which change the format.
QUOTE: “…….. the framers of our constitution put a prohibition of establishment of religion in the First Amendment Bill of Rights”——Anomalocaris
Yes. The framers prohibited establishment of “religion”—organized religion. But, they didn’t prohibit God.
There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the Government from establishing God. It’s the separation of Religion (Church) and State. —- NOT the separation of God and State. “In God WE trust” etc….
But, yes, there have been some serious lapses:
I cringe everytime I drive down the highway and see a totem pole on public roads. Or, how about the scam of the Native American Act, which declared the Reservations “sacred”, and used my tax dollars to give welfare to a religious (tribal) group.
If anyone’s been the victim of religious bias, it’s most certainly been Christians!
It is time to return to reciprocity as the mainstay of our relations with others. Religions that rightly demand that we respect their icons must in turn respect ours. If they do not, then they are not ready to join mainstream civilization. Let them stay smugly in their enclaves and let the rest of the world get on with civilization.
Glamchild, you are wrong. Jews, Catholics, and Protestants to not agree on the numbering of the commandments. For example, one of the commandments is not to murder. It is often mistranslated as “Thou shall not kill,” but this is obviously a mistranslation, since neither Judaism nor Catholicism nor Protestantism requires its followers to be vegetarian. But kill/murder is beside the point. The point is that Jews and Protestants count this as the sixth commandment; Catholics count it as the fifth commandment.
Catholics divide the Jewish and Protestant tenth commandment against coveting into the Catholic ninth and tenth commandment: The ninth against coveting the neighbor’s wife and the tenth against coveting the neighbor’s goods.
Here is a comparison of the first commandments:
Jewish: I am the Lord thy God, who brought
thee out of the land of Egypt, out of
the house of slavery.
Catholic: I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt
not have strange gods before me.
Protestant: Thou shalt have no other gods before
me.
For Jews, the second commandment begins as the Protestant first commandment.
Now then. What if a courthouse in Borough Park in Brooklyn, New York — a heavily Jewish Neighborhood — posts the Jewish Ten Commandments on the wall? A Protestant or Catholic would recognize that that the posted Ten Commandments are “wrong.” Now if one party to a civil dispute is Protestant and one is Jewish, and the Protestant litigant sees the “wrong” (Jewish) Ten Commandments on the wall, does he have confidence that this court is on the level, or is it biased in favor of Jews and against others? Why should he be subject to this? The Ten Commandments belong in Churches and Synogogues, in our homes, and in private buildings. They do not belong in the courts, where it everyone is equal before the law.
Respectfully,
La Shawn,
Thank you for linking to Jeff Jacoby’s piece in the Boston Globe. I agree with much of what he has to say. But I would also say that America disrespects Islam in another way much worse than disrespecting a Koran. And that is by keeping numerous prisoners locked up for several years in a naval base on the island of Cuba, where they are not provided adequate legal representation. After a few months at most, they should have been charged with crimes and tried, but instead, they haven’t even been told what crimes they are accused of. This is outrageous. Charge them and try them, or let them go.
How would Americans feel if a group of Pakistani commandoes took a few hundred prisoners from a church in Virginia to an island off the coast of Pakistan, and held them a few years without trial? No way would we tolerate that. No wonder some Moslems hate America. I love America, but I am ashamed of what America is doing to our prisoners in Guantanamo — many of whom are innocent bystanders, and just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Anomalocaris,
Before you say Glamchild is wrong you really need to do research. There is not one Christian that I know that EVER EVER interpreted that shalt not kill to mean you can’t kill animals and eat them. Please…
There is honestly no substantive (real) difference between the Ten Commandments between the faiths. What you specified were not even accurate but given that you were accurate not even really meaningful substantive differences.
THE POINT IS: You seem obsessed with removing things from public places. Why? Because you are offended? It certainly isn’t how the constitution should be interpreted. Period.
And your last paragraph strikes me as odd because you can insert any number of people and ask those kind of questions.
What if a white person was going into a court witha black judge or a man was being judged by a woman or a brunette was being judged by a blonde? Would anyone of those have confidence that they were on the level?
One of your telling questions was, “Why should he be subject to this?”
Why should any of us be subject to any number of things. Religion should be the farthest from our minds in being offended. There are any number of things much higher on the being offended list that we are subject to everyday. Liberalism, violence, whatever else on TV, Totem poles, dreamcatchers, people with Calvin *issing on this and that on their back windows of their cars, people with silhouettes of dancing ladies on thier cars, people cussing where my daughters can here them, clothing that is not decent, clothing with awful sayings on them.
Yet you are obsessed with removing religion and not the bad things in society. You look at things backwards.
Respectfully,
Baklava
Again, with the posed very erroneous analogy. Here is what you wrote, “How would Americans feel if a group of Pakistani commandoes took a few hundred prisoners from a church in Virginia to an island off the coast of Pakistan, and held them a few years without trial?”
The prisoners in Gitmo were classified as enemy combatants. Only in your mind can people worshipping God in church be labeled as enemy combatants. The president has spoken on this numerous times yet you failed to either listen or disrespect what he says.
You seem to believe that you have the ultimate say as to whether what has happened is legal or not. There are legal scholars on both sides of the Gitmo issue. I PERSONALLY refrain from making judgement only to point out to those who ACT like they know more that you are missing information and not stating information.
Dear Baklave,
Thank you for your reply. You are correct that the prisoners in Guantanamo are classified as enemy combatants. My analogy was not perfect, because most of these prisoners were arrested in locations other than houses of worship. However, the essential part of the analogy holds up. America has taken prisoner numerous persons from Afghanistan and elsewhere, deemed them enemy combatants, and held them indefinitely. Some may be guilty, but others not guilty. We would not allow a foreign power to hold American prisoners indefinitely without trial — including the right to competent legal representation.
For God’s sake, we must charge them with crimes and try them, or let them go!
We must try them or free them for moral reasons.
We must try them and free them for Constitutional reasons. (Your scholars may differ.)
And most important, We must try them and free them for two strategic reasons.
First, it severely damages our reputation in the Islamic world and elsewhere to behave this way. Why would anybody choose “Democracy” over “Islamic Fundamentalist Dictatorship” if Democracy means locking up people of faith for years without charging them of a crime?
Second, it puts our own people at risk of similar or worse treatment if apprehended by theirforces.
Respectfully,
You wrote, “However, the essential part of the analogy holds up.” If someone else can’t see what you are saying with your analogy then it doesn’t work. Communications 102
You wrote, “For God’s sake, we must charge them with crimes and try them, or let them go!” Just because you are worked up about it doesn’t make your “opinion” better. There are legal minds who disagree. I believe that they were enemy combatants and therefore “letting them go” would be equivalent to letting the rapist go (not a good analogy because the rapist was a citizen who had been processed)
You wrote, “First, it severely damages our reputation in the Islamic world and elsewhere to behave this way.” You cannot speak for the Islamists. They did not fly our planes into our buildings killing 3,000+ people because Bush had detained enemy combatants. They did not cut the heads off individual after individual from country after country because we were feeding, clothing, providing accomodations and Koran’s to enemy combatants in Gitmo. You severely lack the understanding of the problem and it shows. It is my opinion that you are just reading propoganda on anti-Bush websites and reiterating it instead of actually looking at all of the facts and forming a sound opinion. Can I state that opinion? It may be offensive or unfair to some that we are holding enemy combatants in Gitmo. I even wish we could do something to “remove” the issue faster because of people like you are in the media churning out articles and are actually pursuading people that it is illegal and that Bush is doing something illegal (they also call the war illegal). But even though I wish the issue was removed and others may think it’s offenseive and unfair, you have to understand what got us here and how VERY VERY LEVEL headed we actually are responding in this war on terror. Many conservatives have wanted a much much tougher war on terror. Do you know that?
You wrote, “Second, it puts our own people at risk of similar or worse treatment if apprehended by theirforces.”
Wup. My response to your second part was cut off.
My response was: That would be like someone justifying their killing of people because they were offended that people in their family was sequestored for jury duty. How’s that for an analogy. Works for me because it has killing for being detained in it.
Anom, just as long as you’re clear on the fact that while there is no state religion, all religons were NOT welcome. To wit, Wiccans, Mormons and quite a few others were NOT free to practice as they pleased.
As for iconography, who do you think put up the first icons and Christian ideology into our charter documents? Why do you even bring up tired revisionist arguments about what the founding fathers were voting for before they voted against it?
Tell us something we didn’t know, such as what the founding fathers thot of the resultant mass of fish OD’ing on tea in the Boston Harbor during the first recorded anti-globalisation riot.
Dear Andy,
Yes, I am clear that there is no state religion in the United States. I am not sure what you mean by “Wiccans, Mormons and quote a few others were NOT free to practice as they pleased.” If you mean “at the time the country was founded” then my response is “There were no Mormons at the time the country was founded.” If you mean “at times in the past” I agree that in the early days of Mormonism, the religion said that men could have multiple wives. Mainstream Mormonism has repudiated this doctrine, but a few splinter sects still adhere to it. Bigamy is not legal in any state of the United States, so any member of a religion or sect that permits multiple spouses at the same time has to give up that aspect of their religion in the United States. But they can practice their religion up to the limits of the law. Most of the time, law and religion don’t collide.
I am not sure what you meant by Wiccans not being free to practice. As far as I know, Wiccans do not have any practices or rituals that break laws. It may be that at times in the past, Christian-influenced legislatures passed laws banning one religion or another. Well, we had the Salem witch trials too. But we wouldn’t tolerate witch trials today — they are unconstitutional. And we don’t tolerate banning religions per se. All we do is ban a few practices that we wouldn’t allow anybody to do for any reason.
I am not sure what “icons” you find in our charter documents. An “icon” is an image. The Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were not illustrated. They were just handwritten texts. One of these documents, the Declaration of Independence, refers to the “Creator” but in a non-denominational way.
My points are neither tired nor revisionist. If they tire you, get more sleep.
La Shawn hit the nail on the head when she stated “My God’s words live in my heart, and no one and no thing can remove or “defile†them.” Those that claim a relationship with God through Jesus the Messiah SHOULD take time to study and meditate on God’s revealed word, just as the Jews were commanded to. Once you know something, it becomes a part of you. While I’d not want any of my bibles damaged by anyone in any way, I wouldn’t kill anyone over it. After all of these years if I don’t have enough of it in my heart/spirit to go a day or three without physically reading it, then I couldn’t have been very serious about the study of it to begin with.
As for the Muslims that did riot, killing their own countrymen, I can’t fathom what REALLY drove them to that. In the US, those of us that love the Lord and His Christ (and His word) are assaulted DAILY, yet with no comparable response.
Christianity is NOT a philosophy/religion of victimization. The heirs of God are MORE than conquerors, so the sniping we have to deal with is small stuff. I will say this to my brothers and sisters: stop whining about every perceived (or actual) slight. EXPECT to be vilified. We have work to do that MUST be done. I mean, it isn’t like we haven’t been forewarned that the world we live in would hate us. We can take comfort in the fact that Jesus has already overcome the world and we share in that victory.
Regarding the talk about bigamy, above:
Interestingly, the Bigamists have filed lawsuits asserting their freedom to engage in bigamy. There’s about a dozen federal lawsuits winding their way through Utah and Colorado Federal Courts right now. And, they are making a freedom of religion argument to support it.
Religion is used to justify all kinds of crazy, and, often, illegal activities.
Back to the Indians: Native Americans frequently use peyote —-an illegal hallucenagenic—- in their religious services. Peyote is an illegal drug in the USA, and nobody else would get away with using it for “religious purposes”.
Actually, forget freedom of religion….. Native Americans, under “sovereignty” feel they aren’t even subject to U.S. Law. They follow “Tribal Law”, and simply don’t have to obey anything we say.
That’s the sham of “sovereignty”.
Gosh, you’re a mean drunk! All that over a typo? Give up the sauce. Believe me when I tell you it’s not worth it. – Admin
Glamchild,
You are litttle off base about the Amerinds. The religious use of peyote by some tribes predates peyote being classified as an illegal drug. And the tribes that use it in religious functions do not us it in a habitual fashion, but as part of specific, and infrequent, ceremonies.
For the religious purposes point you make, think about this: During Prohibition, Alchohol was illegal. Yet churches, esp the Catholic Church, were still allowed to use wine in ceremonies.
Sovereignty: Most reservations are subject to only federal law, not state laws. Remember, many of these reservations were created as part of treaties between the US and the individual tribal nations.
There are activists that behave the way you describe, but they are a minority among the Amerind population. Actually, I hear that BS more from pinkskin wannabe do-gooders than from tribals.
LaShawn, hope I’m not too late to add a pertinent comment. Please take a moment to read this article on OpinionJournal.com as a good summary of why the Qu’ran is not the “Muslim Bible” and how the religions differ with respect to the Holy Texts. Direct comparisons are not justified. Best wishes.
Glamchild, I’ll have to side with SCSI on all points. Furthermore, like the bloated IMF and World Bank, the Bureau of Indian Afairs caused more damage by economically oppressing the very subjects they were tasked to assist.
Like Nkrumah was exploited by British colonialists cum business partners, the Indians were exploited and “nickeled & dimed” to death, in order to get them appreciate, and depend, on the hi-fat subsistance powdered milk (no pun intended), in this case coming from Uncle Sam.
Dare I say, more than the so-called reparations due descendants of slaves, we have still yet to do right by many of the duly sworn treaties that we soberly agreed to? A just start would be full emancipation of the reservations following the complete withdrawal of the Federal Government from Indian Affairs.
Anom, my point was that it wasn’t as clear cut as you implied it to be. Rather than take the time to spell it out for you, I chose to speak in generalities and pointing out a couple more common-knowledge incidents of “interference–figuring you’d suss it. However, it doesn’t make my point moot with regards to the discriminations that the founding fathers had for certain sects and non-judeo-christian religions. And so it goes, revising the past.
Anom #39:”I am not sure what “icons†you find in our charter documents. An “icon†is an image. The Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were not illustrated. They were just handwritten texts. One of these documents, the Declaration of Independence, refers to the “Creator†but in a non-denominational way.”
Anom #24: “I don’t know about MSM or jihad, but I agree with the ACLU that Ten Commandment iconography does not belong in public buildings — especially judicial buildings.”
What was it you didn’t understand about my use of “icons”?
As for our charter documents, the “plain” text contained within is a verifiable work of art — often imitated, never duplicated.
If it were any shorter, it’d be a mini photoalbum, each a picture of what our forefathers intended. Instead, it’s a rich document with hyperlinks to both history as facts & the future as ideas.
If the EU constitution was any shorter, it’d still be longer than need be. (For starters, they chose the language of diplomacy to convey the EU image
)
As for the mention of “the Creator”, we all know who they were referring to. By the way, where on God’s green earth did we get the God-Creator meme?
Can I take 3 stabs at it?
Isa 40:28 Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. (for context, ya gotta read that whole chapter)
1Pe 4:19 Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.
A simple five question test to determine your political bent.
If you see someone burning an American flag you should:
1) Ignore it, he’s a moonbat who will soon die of some dread disease he contracted through using dirty illegal drugs or engaging in weird sex.
2) Remind him that the flag is held in high esteem by many and tell him that someone might hurt him if he doesn’t stop.
3) Pour a bucket of water on the burning flag, lecture him about how great America is, and tell him to go home and read some history books.
4) Pour a bucket of water on the burning flag, clobber him in the head with the empty bucket and before he can get up remove all his clothes and burn them.
If you come across someone passing out leaflets reading “US out of America” you should:
1) Ignore it, idiot ideas are everywhere and moonbats swoon over them all the time.
2) Take a leaflet, pretend to read it, then ask him what language it is in and what planet he is from .
3) Take all his leaflets, tell him he looks tired and you’ll circulate the leaflets for him so he can go home and get high.
4) Slap his face several times, take all the leaflets and stuff them into his mouth one by one until he passes out.
If you own an object you prize above all else because you believe it has been sanctified by whatever G-d you believe in and someone spits on it you should:
1) Ignore him, he’s just a misguided kid who has no clue how he even dressed himself this morning.
2) Lower and shake your head sadly realizing that this benighted individual has not yet learned the truth.
3) Shake your finger at him and give him a stern reminder that such behavior will make him unpopular.
4) Poke a finger into his chest while shouting “desecrator, desecrator” and when he raises his arm to protect himself rearrange his facial contours.
If you see a group of protesters calling themselves America Last you should:
1) Ignore them, cross the street and comfort yourself with the thought that free speech allows even these demented people a voice.
2) Stop, listen to their chant (they’ll only have one), ask how on earth any thinking person could come up with such pathetic versification.
3) Stop, start your own chant “Hey, Hey, U S A, Hope you win again today!”
4) Stop, take out a rubber truncheon and begin methodically moving through the crowd rapping each member of the group solidly behind each knee.
If you read an article disrespectful of American values you should:
1) Ignore it, everyone is entitled to a stupid opinion now and then even if they never have anything but stupid opinions.
2) Contact the editor, criticize the article and the writer sprinkling the conversation liberally with terms such as Commie, pinko, leftist, Socialist, and traitor.
3) Cancel your subscription, write the publisher telling them that you and everyone you can convince will never buy anything published by that company again.
4) Go to the publisher’s office, find the writer and beat the crap out of him then find the editor and beat the crap out of him then set their desks and files on fire.
If you find someone desecratorily touching a Koran you should:
1) Slay him, he has desecrated the holy Qu’ran and insulted the prophet, may he rest in peace.
2) Issue a fatwah on the desecrator offering paradise to anyone who finds and kills him.
3) Start a riot blaming the little Satan Israel and the big Satan America for creating this atmosphere of disrespect for Islam.
4) Ignore it, you don’t care because the truth is in your heart, the book is a mere reflection.
OK, OK, so I can’t count…it’s a six question test.
Comments on this entry are closed.