The current hot button issue concerns a Christian minister in Florida and at least some of his congregation who have announced that they intend to mark September 11 this year by burning copies of the Islamic holy book, the Koran.
I oppose this on environmental grounds. Burning is bad.
However, as long as they legally obtain copies of the Koran those books belong to them and they may destroy the books if they wish for whatever reason they choose. Those books are their personal property. It seems silly to me but not completely irrational since the United States was attacked by 19 Muslim men on Sept. 11, 2001 for reasons associated with their Muslimness. This lead to NATO military action in Afghanistan, which continues today.
If we may burn the American flag, why not books, even those considered holy scripture by their faithful? Destroying your own personal property is OK. So is developing it.
This issue closely follows, and may be a reaction to, the fuss over an Islamic Imam who wants to develop personal property that he owns two blocks from ground zero, the site of the on Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. He's intent on building an Islamic center. It seemed harmless enough until it became a media issue and then it became insensitive, you know, because those 19 Islamic terrorists hijacked four commercial airliners and intentionally crashed two of them into each of the two World Trade center buildings, destroying both buildings and killing over 2,000 innocent people including some Muslims. Oh, a third airline was intentionally crashed into the Pentagon and the fourth crashed in a field.
Once it became a media issue it seemed insensitive for the Imam to insist on continuing with the project but, hey, that is his right, to develop his personal property.
New York Mayor Bloomberg weighed in heavily on the side of development, perhaps because of his business background. He also, made a big point of religious freedom.
Both issues have unleashed a tirade of religious freedom rants, which seem completely based on fantasy, not fact. How many Muslims were killed in the U.S. since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks? How many were attacked? How many mosques were burned? I think few, if any, is the answer to all those questions. President Bush the younger went to a mosque days after the attack to demonstrate religious tolerance. How many Muslim moderates condemned those attacks since the Sept. 11, 2001? Not many. How many Muslim moderates are suddenly crying religious bias now? Many.
So if Americans collectively have shown nothing but religious tolerance toward Muslims since Sept. 11, 2001 why are they painted by some as intolerant for these two recent innocuous issues: one a bit whacky but harmless, the other quite understandable?
The U.S. general in Afghanistan has stated that the whacky Florida minister by merely announcing that he intends to burn his own copies of the Koran has put U.S. troops in harms way. Doesn't that lend credence to the idea that some Muslims are nuts enough to kill people because of something as trivial as a book burning?
An emergency ecumenical meeting of Christian, Jewish and Muslim "leaders" was just convened to condemn the Florida minister. That seems out of all proportion with the minister's intent and importance. Even the president's press secretary has commented. One of these ecumenical leaders even called upon the U.S. Attorney-General to prosecute the Florida minister. For what? Exercising his constitutional rights of freedom of speech and religion?
Doesn't religious freedom include disliking a religion?
Isn't destroying personal property that has religious symbolism classified as freedom of speech, like burning the American flag?
Everybody calm the heck down. Do not become violent. Be tolerant, even with those with whom we disagree.
