I know it’s silly to keep analyzing Bryan Fischer and trying to point out how nuts the things he says are, let alone trying to point out logically how the points he raises are poorly founded, dubiously structured, and thus utterly undependable as conclusions.
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
But I still feel the obligation to do so. My apologies.
So here we are: Islam is a religion of violence: Gen. Petraeus says so
Well, no, he doesn’t, but don’t let that stop your zany inferences, Bryan.
Pastor Terry Jones intends to burn copies of the Qur’an at his church on 9/11. It’s not something I would do were I still in the pastorate, and not something I recommend.
Really, Bryan? Why’s that? Is it because it’s a basely insulting act, or because it might cause TERRORISTS TO EAT YOUR BRAINS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT?
So far the ACLU, which will defend anybody, anywhere, at anytime who puts a torch to the American flag, has been conspicuously silent in defending Rev. Jones’ right to free expression.
That’s because the government hasn’t tried to stop Pastor Jones from doing this — at least, not for political or religious reasons (fire codes are a different matter).
But the response to Rev. Jones’ plan proves something we have been saying from the beginning: Islam is a religion of violence, not a religion of peace.
And the critics of Rev. Jones and the supporters of Islam don’t even seem to realize how they are damning Islam all the while they claim to be defending it.
Most critics of Rev. Jones think he’s just being a dick.
Gen. Petraeus is Exhibit A. According to the Wall Street Journal, he says the burning of Qur’ans by Jones’ Florida church “could put the lives of American troops in danger.”
Says Petraeus:
“It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort. It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems. Not just here, but everywhere in the world we are engaged with the Islamic community.”
Well, how can this be? How can American lives be endangered by doing nothing more than putting a match to pieces of paper, if Islam is a religion of peace and moderation? How can this be?
Well, golly, Bryan, what do you think?
Let’s say, for example, that a Muslim imam in, say, Iran, said he was going to show those pushy Christianist Americans what’s what and commemorate the beginning of the Operation: Desert Storm by burning a truckload of Bibles (King James Version, of course).
Many Christians would be deeply offended. They would consider this blatant disrespect at a minimum, and high blasphemy. Many would consider it a sign that Iran (or perhaps Islam as a whole) is a deadly enemy of Christianity and the United States, and some would be more likely to support military action against that country. A few might even (with the frothing up of some fundamentalist minister — or popular AFA spokescritter, let’s say) join the military for the opportunity to “get” some of those blasphemous Muslims.
All for “putting a match to pieces of paper.”
Now, not everyone would take up arms against Iran or Islam for this. But many folks would be less likely to support Muslim countries, even ones that were working for common goals with us.
And that, Bryan, is not much different than what’s happening here. Gen. Petraeus is saying that a calculated provocation and insult to Islam is not going to sit well with Muslims — especially if some clever provocateurs and rabble-rousers among them actually want to make something of it.
When atheists and secularists like the minions of the ACLU, get the Bible banned from schools what do Christians do? They make phone calls, send emails, and go to court. What do Muslims do under similar circumstances? They start shooting and throwing bombs.
(1) Bibles are not banned from schools. Bibles are banned from being taught from as a proselytizing tool for Christianity. A teacher or a student can carry a Bible with them if they want, even on campus.
(2) The same restrictions apply to the Qur’an. Yet I don’t know of any cases of Muslims protesting at schools or school boards.
(3) Comparing restricting the teaching of the Bible as a science text or as the High Holy Moral Truth to students, to actually burning the Bible, is poppycock, pure and simple. Ditto the Qur’an.
(4) Bryan, you might want to check out this story on The Great Textbook Wars in 1974, where school textbook decisions along the lines you mention above “led to violent protests in West Virginia. Schools were hit by dynamite, buses were riddled with bullets, and coal mines were shut down.” All by “peaceful” Christians.
Notice as well that nobody is asking what Muslims might have done that ticked off Rev. Jones, how the Muslim world may in fact to blame for his little demonstration. Nobody is out there saying that Muslim policies are “an accessory” to his bonfire, or he is “made in the Muslim world” because of Islamic attacks against America. Nope.
Because talking about “Muslims” or “the Muslim world” in that sort of broad stroke as justifying Rev. Jones being rude and insulting is as stupid as talking about “Christians” or “the Christian world” as being responsible for what Rev. Jones chooses to do.
That some Muslims have committed horrible crimes on behalf of their religion is no more an indictment of their religion than all the horrors committed by Christians in the name of Christ. And, yes, many Muslims are just as nearsighted about the distinction as so many Christians are.
Islam has defenders galore, all eager to excuse Muslim violence against Americans on the grounds that Muslims have been provoked by the West. But when Rev. Jones does nothing more than commit violence against a dead tree, he has nary a defender to say that Muslim provocation is to blame.
But, of course, Bryan, you’ve roundly condemned anyone who suggested that American policy in the Middle-East could have had anything to do with how some extremist Muslims might have acted. Are you suggesting now that we should consider that?
I haven’t heard anyone “excuse” violence by Muslim extremists against Americans. (Well, nobody I consider rational — Ward Churchill comes to mind.) But suggesting it has all occurred in a vacuum because Muslims are intrinsically violent and prone to kill outsiders with no provocation seems equally simplistic.
Upon hearing of Rev. Jones’ plan, hundreds of Afghan protesters shouted “death to America” at a really in Kabul. And they threw rocks at a passing military convoy, just to make clear that their intentions are entirely peaceful.
Hundreds of Afghan protesters know what will get them on TV. And Afghanistan is in the middle of an armed conflict. However righteous or necessary the invasion of Afghanistan may have been, one suspects one could find “hundreds” in Kabul who aren’t terribly happy about it in the first place, and who would throw rocks (ooooooh!) at a convoy in protest (cf. The Boston Massacre).
The Wall Street Journal adds:
Gen. Petraeus declined to elaborate on precisely what kinds of threats or violence could occur in the wake of such a demonstration. But westerners in Afghanistan have been warned away from restaurants and other public places as tensions arise over the matter.
Okay. “Violence could occur” and Americans have been warned to stay away from the local Denny’s in Afghanistan, because you might get blown to pieces in the middle of your Grand Slam breakfast. Nope, nothing alarming here.
Because Afghanistan is a land of peace and harmony, except for all the Muslims, right?
Let’s face it — if the entire Afghan populace — the vast majority of whom are Muslim — decided to let loose with their violent Islamic tendencies, our troops there would be massacred overnight.
But that’s not going to happen. Because the violence is being committed — or, in this case, “could occur” — at the hands of a much smaller number of extremists.
Are there more officially Muslim murderous terrorists in the world than there are officially Christian murderous terrorists? Perhaps — though some folks in Northern Ireland, or the Basque country of Spain, might disagree. But, then, there aren’t nearly as many Christian countries under occupation by non-Christian armed forces, are there?
Think back to the time at Guantanamo Bay when an entirely false rumor circulated that a Gitmo guard had flushed a Qur’an down a toilet. Riots broke out all over the Muslim world.
The outbreak of violence in the wake of the Gitmo Qur’an episode was exceeded only by the violent riots of Christians all over the U.S. when the Ten Commandments were removed from classrooms in 1980. The carnage, the looting of buildings, the firebombing of cars, the attacks on police, the death of innocent civilians, threatened the stability of the American Republic. Oh wait. Didn’t happen.
But then we’re not talking here about the religion of peace, are we? The Journal helpfully concludes, “Officials fear that video of a (sic) members of Mr. Jones’s church burning of Qurans could set off similar violence and stepped up attacks against U.S. troops.”
Hmm. A third mention in one short article of “violence” and “attacks against U.S. troops.” Looks like the ones who are hijacking Islam are the ones who want us to believe it is a religion of peace. D’ya think?
Are there Muslims who are going to riot if Rev. Jones goes ahead with his Qur’an-burning plans? Yeah, probably. Certainly there will be loud, raucous protests that probably spill over in to civil unrest and possible violence. And, yes, that’s wrong.
On the other hand, we have arson against mosques in this country. We’ve had violence against threatening religious outsiders (Jews, Catholics, Mormons). We had violence mentioned above.
And, in the situations where our troops are fighting against Muslims, we have (a) people already inclined to see this war in religious terms, and take Rev. Jones’ actions as yet another motivation to fight and kill (holy war being, of course, not solely a Muslim concept), and (b) bystanders and local civilians who maybe will be less inclined to help or support those nassssty Christian troops from the US who obviously hate their religion. (That we already have folks over there on our side who consider this a religious crusade doesn’t help matters any.)
Nobody is excusing any violence committed against our troops for religious purposes, Bryan, even in the face of this kind of provocation. But to suggest that Rev. Jones’ actions will not make a dangerous situation more dangerous — or, conversely, that it becoming more dangerous is simply because Islam is full of hateful terrorists — is simple lunacy (or demagoguery) on your part.