Stupid Pastor Finished With Stupid Publicity Stunt

|

Too many column inches have already been devoted to the inarticulate pastor in a cheap suit—the Lemmy Kilmister of Florida fundamentalism, Terry Jones—so I guess, making my modest contribution, I'm required to repeat what should be obvious to any reasonable news consumer: "Pastor" Jones is a knuckle-dragging lunatic who deserves only the attention of those dumb enough to have joined his church. And no, he isn't "skilled" at playing the media; any rube with a freakazoid flock can gin up coverage by promising a Koran bonfire on the anniversary of 9/11. Here is Michael Calderone, Orlando Sentinel columnist Mike Thomas, and Howard Kurtz on the media scrum.

But the Mohammad cartoon business, once seen as a fleeting moment of media cowardice, has had something of a lasting effect, establishing a disturbing set of media rules by which one deals with critics, both rational and irrational, of Islam. In Sweden, the government forced a private hosting company to pull the plug on a website hosting the offending cartoons. It's a different situation, one without the deeply sinister threat of government intervention, but the web hosting company Rackspace, which hosts this website, yanked Jones's site today, establishing an editorial policy, it seems, on what its customers can say about religion. That is, of course, their right.

After MSNBC flooded the zone today with coverage of Jones, one of its producers tweeted that if Koranopalloza goes forward the network "shall then determine what images, if any, are to be broadcast or posted." Look, if you are going to cover this non-story (BREAKING: Insane, Superstitious Florida Man Hates Islam!), then cover it all the way. Fox News says that it wouldn't broadcast the Koran burning, but primarily because it doesn't think it rates as a news story. It churns the stomach to think that this dope's contribution to religious debate is setting the Koran alight—or burning the books of Erich Maria Remarque and Thomas Mann—but I think we are all adult enough to see such images, if the story is considered newsworthy by the networks.

It doesn't take much imagination to understand why Muslims would by offended by the burning of their holy book (or Christians, for that matter), but perhaps some of the focus should be removed from Terry Jones and on to those tender souls that, in response to stupid provocation, threaten violence. If a minor league pastor in Florida can cause masses of people to hit the streets in Pakistan, perhaps the problem lies more in Pakistan than in Florida.

Oh, and just while I was posting this, Jones said he was calling off his publicity stunt, having gotten all the publicity he needed, I suppose.

NEXT: "We hold that tattooing is purely expressive activity fully protected by the First Amendment"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “If a minor league pastor in Florida can cause masses of people to hit the streets in Pakistan, perhaps the problem lies more in Pakistan than in Florida.”

    +1

    1. If a minor league pastor in Florida can generate the massive news coverage necessary for this story to reach Pakistan, perhaps the problem actually lies more with the media.

        1. Why can’t it be both?

          1. My reaction exactly. The people who are getting riled about this (and about the YMMA) are the problem. And the media making such a huge deal about both matters are also the problem, especially with the pastor. He’s just a wacko making a name for himself, probably with dreams of getting that Apocalypse thing moving.

            1. He’s just a wacko making a name for himself, probably with dreams of getting that Apocalypse thing moving.

              Or a reality TV show deal or YouTube hits. Worked for a lot of other untalented yahoos. Just think, William Hung could have held on to fame just THAT much longer with a strategically dated bonfire.

              “She burn! She burn!”

          2. Why can’t it be both?

            Or all three? Pastor, Media, Pakistani Street.

          3. There’s enough pie for everyone.

  2. I wonder how MSNBC would handle the editorial decision on whether to show a US flag being burned.

    1. Ed Schultz would bring the lighter fluid, as T.F.* Olbermann isn’t trusted with matches, even at MSNBC.

      *T.F. = That Fuckstain.

    2. I’ve been watching US flags being burned since I was old enough to understand the imagery. And that was way before MSNBC existed. My guess is the media has no trouble showing a US flag burning.

      1. Americans do not have a history of assassinating people who merely burn American flags.

        1. Exactly. It doesn’t make sense: Draw a cartoon of Jesus or burn a Bible, and face the wrath of, *maybe*, an angry mob waving placards… draw a cartoon of Mohammed or burn a Koran, and shit gets destroyed and/or people are either threatened, or killed.

      2. Yes. So why do the networks consider burning an American flag, or a Bible, fair game to show but have to do some soul searching over showing a burning Koran?

        I guess the lesson here is enough threats of violence will allow you to get your way. Kind of like in the second grade.

        Or that the media is golden with anti-American and anti-Christian protests but protective of Islamic sensibilities.

        Or both.

  3. Thank Jaysus, a full on Koran Burning Post. What a fucking joke. I agree whole-heartedly. It’s as idiotic as the mosque bullshit.

    I wouldn’t give a fuck if the president (I am actually imagining someone other than Obama) came out and burned the Constitution. Not the original of course. No problem so long as this president could ADHERE to the Constitution.

    In agreement, I believe it’s fair to say that the onus should lie squarely on the party(s) that can’t adhere to: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words (or burning pulp!) can never hurt me.

    1. It doesn’t take much imagination to understand why Muslims would by offended by the burning of their holy book (or Christians, for that matter)

      Burning Christians is offensive is why.

      if the president (I am actually imagining someone other than Obama) came out and burned the Constitution. Not the original of course. No problem so long as this president could ADHERE to the Constitution.

      You want the President should burn?

      1. Shaineh, Bubeleh!

        1. Be a mensch, not a schmendrick!

    2. Thank you for beating me to this.

      1. No problem so long as this president could ADHERE to the Constitution.

        Tangentially related, sort of, is that napalm? ADHERES to kids.

        Just sayin’…

  4. So sick of the “my invisible friend is better than you invisible friend” shit.

    1. Me, too. Patience, my friend.

      1. Infidel

        1. Trump.

          1. Stop messing around and get yourself to bed THIS INSTANT, YOUNG MAN!

            1. Leave the kid alone and go get me a beer.

              1. Get it yourself, you lazy bum.

                1. POLICE, OPEN U….

                  *bang door down, shoots Void Dog for starters*

                  …P!!!! BANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANG!!!!

                  TV Reporter: “The Anti-Void SWATzi were called upon to respond to a “domestic disturbance” earlier today that, due to the heroic efforts of those here To Serve and Protect?, resulted in the deaths of four drug kingpins…”

                  1. You forgot the part where they tazer the guy sitting on the couch three times while yelling “STOP RESISTING! STOP RESISTING!”

          2. You don’t exist. Stop spoofing us.

    2. its actually “my giant all powerful, but never deigns to actually do anything himself, so he needs the most stupid to do it for him” friend.

    3. Poosibly the thing that makes it worse is that it’s not even this, it’s

      I do what the invisible friend says the right way–your way is wrong

      because they all have the same invisible friend.

  5. Both sides of this story were stupid fucks. The so-called pastor, for playing the “we’re gunna burn th’ Ko-ran” game, and the extremists who were set to riot and/or kill because some nimrod pastor was contemplating burning a fucking BOOK.

    No shortage of ignorant fools either way.

  6. Jones said he was calling off his publicity stunt

    USA! USA! USA!

  7. Sometimes a book is just a book. A pox on every allegedly professional news organization for blowing this thing out of proportion, and on General Petraeus, Secretary Clinton and President Obama himself for giving the medieval bigot a legitimacy he doesn’t deserve.

    1. Not to mention elevating the damn book to something worthy of mention.

    2. I’d say that the pastor gave them a legitmacy that they don’t deserve.

    3. Don’t forget the medieval bigots who were planning/may still riot over the now non-Koran-burning…

      1. Yup. They hardly needed an excuse.

        1. How dare you call us uncivilized and violent! We’re going to burn something now to protest!

  8. but perhaps some of the focus should be removed from Terry Jones and on to those tender souls that, in response to stupid provocation, threaten violence. If a minor league pastor in Florida can cause masses of people to hit the streets in Pakistan, perhaps the problem lies more in Pakistan than in Florida.

    I’d say most of the coverage should be focused on how Islam incites violence among its followers.

    Also, the episode showed — again — that the West is a bunch of cowards. Some no-name moron in Florida promised to do something moronic and the entire Western world rushed to apologize preemptively for the offense. Obama, Clinton, Merkel, Petraeus, the head of Nato, the Vatican abased themselves in front of savages bent on killing people because some moron was going to burn their holy book. I bet Obama himself would fly to Florida Saturday morning to organize another “beer summit” in order to prevent World War III, if Jones didn’t call off Koran burning.

    Muslims must see us as a bunch of pussies. And they are right.

    1. You should nut up and go kill some ragheads.

      1. You should be able to guess correctly how much I despise Western apologists of Islam.

        1. Vote his ass out in 2012!

    2. And yet we seem to be far ahead in the overall body count.

      1. USA! USA! US…wait a minute…

      2. I know, Muslims are way ahead of us in the hierarchy of victimhood. How dare we criticize them?

      3. If you count Muslim victims of religiously motivated violence perpetrated by Muslims, I’m not sure that’s true.

    3. Islam incites violence among its followers? Then why aren’t they rioting in Turkey, or Albania or Dearborn, MI? I think it is more likely that certain leaders take any opportunity they can find to stir up some anti-US shit.

  9. http://www.ocala.com/article/2…..ve-doesn-t

    Battle of the stupid continues.

    1. We’re getting angry … er!

    2. The human scum on MSNBC continue to work the political angle. It’s hitting Ed Schultz’s “hot buttons!” And for all his network’s overreaction, he blames…Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich! (Not that they aren’t scumbags who have somehow conflated the “Ground Zero” mosque with the retard preacher from Gainesville.)

      1. No body yet claiming it’s “Bush’s Fault” ™?

    3. Thank god for the Westboro Baptist Church. They have done more to protect free speech than any other religious body in the US.

      Let them burn their qurans, hate their gays, thank their god for 9/11 and protest military funerals.

      Free speech is about protecting unpopular speech.

      1. Liar! Pinhead!

      2. Do you really think we would have less free speech if not for the Westboro Baptist Church?

        It seems more likely that we would have the same free speech we have no, just fewer people exercising their free speech rights to say massively idiotic and barbaric things in public.

        After all, we would still have the ACLU and similar groups to defend unpopular, but constitutionally protected, speech and actions.

        1. I gotta admit, I like seeing the free-speech envelope pushed. And in this day and age, who else is gonna push it?

        2. If someone isn’t out there offending people, people get thin-skinned. Think of how much different offensive TV is since South Park started. They got people used to having to deal with offensive TV, and that’s a damn good thing.

          1. I’m not certain many people in Pakistan get South Park.

            1. Cartman is universal.

            2. Instead of South Park they this show where rich Americans and Jesus take turns shitting on each other.

              1. isn’t that south park?

      3. Free speech is about protecting unpopular speech.

        I agree 100%. Protecting unpopular speech does not make it popular, though. If a dead soldier’s dad decked the pastor of Westboro, I would contribute to the dad’s legal defense fund. The good pastor deserves a good ole-fashioned ass whoopin!

    4. Dove World is one of the few groups to join forces with Westboro members, who have protested at funerals across the country.

      That explains more about this church than anything else I’ve read.

    5. Korans and rainbow flags on the same pyre? The mind boggles.

      1. Agreed. And the idea that the speech is ‘unpopular’ isn’t really true, depending on which group is asked.

        Westboro members may hate gays, but they don’t actually hang them like in Iran, which would imply that some of the very Muslims that would get so upset about the Koran burning would scoff at Westboro for being “soft on Gay”.

        Westboro hates gays, hates soldiers who go off to fight Muslim terrorists, and hates Muslims.

        That’s at least an 8 on the scale of hate, if not a 10.

      2. Toss Mao’s Little Red Book and Gore’s writings on that pyre, and don’t be stingy with the fossil-fuel accelerants…

  10. “perhaps some of the focus should be removed from Terry Jones and on to those tender souls that, in response to stupid provocation, threaten violence.”

    So I suppose you will say the same of your pal Ayaan Hirsi Ali for demanding a violent response to Muslims burning American flags or effigies of Western leaders?
    https://reason.com/archives/200…..the-west/3

    1. Oh, right, it’s only violence when a mob of brown people do it. When Americans fire missiles at said brown people, that’s, um, something else.

      1. Because there is not a significant portion of Americans who are, themselves, brown?

        You race-baiting fuckstick.

        1. Hey, a, is it only wrong if the other side does it? Or is it wrong when ANYONE does it?

          While you’re gnawing on that, put the deck of race cards away. This requires cogitation, not talking-points from MediaMatters.

    2. Not surprisingly, that’s not at all what Ayaan Hirsi Ali said in the interview you link to–you did read it didn’t you?

      1. Sure did. Even Roger van Bakel was taken aback.

        Reason: Explain to me what you mean when you say we have to stop the burning of our flags and effigies in Muslim countries. Why should we care?

        Hirsi Ali: We can make fun of George Bush. He’s our president. We elected him. And the queen of England, they can make fun of her within Britain and so on. But on an international level, this has gone too far. You know, the Russians, they don’t burn American flags. The Chinese don’t burn American flags. Have you noticed that? They don’t defile the symbols of other civilizations. The Japanese don’t do it. That never happens.

        Reason: Isn’t that a double standard? You want us to be able to say about Islam whatever we want?and I certainly agree with that. But then you add that people in Muslim countries should under all circumstances respect our symbols, or else.

        Hirsi Ali: No, no, no.

        Reason: We should be able to piss on a copy of the Koran or lampoon Muhammad, but they shouldn’t be able to burn the queen in effigy. That’s not a double standard?

        Hirsi Ali: No, that’s not what I’m saying. In Iran a nongovernmental organization has collected money, up to 150,000 British pounds, to kill Salman Rushdie. That’s a criminal act, but we are silent about that.

        Reason: We are?

        Hirsi Ali: Yes. What happened? Have you seen any political response to it?

        Reason: The fatwa against Rushdie has been the subject of repeated official anger and protests since 1989.

        Hirsi Ali: I don’t know. The British sailors who were kidnapped this year?what happened? Nothing happened. The West keeps giving the impression that it’s OK, so the extremists will get away with it. Saudi Arabia is an economic partner, a partner in defense. On the other hand, they?Saudi Arabia, wealthy Saudi people?spread Islam. They have a sword on their flag. That’s the double standard.

        Reason: I want my government to protest the Rushdie fatwa. I’m not so sure they ought to diplomatically engage some idiots burning a piece of cloth or a straw figure in the streets of Islamabad. Isn’t there a huge difference between the two?

        Hirsi Ali: It’s not just a piece of cloth. It’s a symbol. In a tribal mind-set, if I’m allowed to take something and get away with it, I’ll come back and take some more. In fact, I’ll come and take the whole place, especially since it’s my holy obligation to spread Islam to the outskirts of the earth and I know I’ll be rewarded in heaven. At that point, I’ve only done my religious obligation while you’re still sitting there rationalizing that your own flag is a piece of cloth.
        ***********

        I’ll grant that she attempts to backtrack a bit, but what in the world do you think she’s suggesting in the bolded parts above? A strongly worded note?

        1. Seriously, Steve, how do you think she wants to stop Muslims from “getting away with” burning flags and effigies?

      2. I left out the worst part, actually:

        Hirsi Ali: I think that we are at war with Islam. And there’s no middle ground in wars. Islam can be defeated in many ways. For starters, you stop the spread of the ideology itself; at present, there are native Westerners converting to Islam, and they’re the most fanatical sometimes. There is infiltration of Islam in the schools and universities of the West. You stop that. You stop the symbol burning and the effigy burning, and you look them in the eye and flex your muscles and you say, “This is a warning. We won’t accept this anymore.” There comes a moment when you crush your enemy.
        ****

        What the hell do you think she means by that? I’m asking you, too, Moynihan.

        1. There are lots of responses to a perceived threat. She is pointing out that the spread of Islam is, in her opinion, a threat to western democracies; I tend to agree with her on that point.

          1. Go read those passages again and try telling me with a straight face that she’s not advocating a violent response (unless, as I said earlier, it’s not violence when the American military kills people).

            1. She might still be pissed about the clitorectomy.

              Also, if she believes that we are indeed ‘at war with Islam’, then “crushing your enemy” is to be expected, and done regardless of the treatment of your symbols – meaning she advocates violence regardless of the flag burning.

              I know you’ve linked to her, but, is there literally some movement that would cause riots in America that are anywhere near the cartoon riots over these burnt flags?

              1. Okay, I’m a cunt. You caught me.

            2. I read the whole interview. And I am telling you with a straight face that she is not advocating that the US respond with violence to someone burning the flag or an effigy of a western leader.

              I am sure she favors a military response to acts of violent aggression (e.g. responding to terrorist attacks with violence directed at the terrorists). But that type of violent response is justified since it is self-defensive violence.

              When she says we are “at war with Islam”, she could be referring to the military conflict with certain jihadist groups (where violent actions are necessary); or the broader “war of ideas” between freedom and sharia (which is also necessary for freedom to win, except that in an ideological debate violence is not the appropriate response to the other side making an argument).

              But if you want to convince me that she wants the US military to target non-violent flag burners for bombing, you will have to point me to a quote where she says that directly – not something you infer from ambiguous wording.

  11. Let me be clear.

    If the Reverend Terry Jones decides to listen to me rather than to God, … all I can say is … Oh, ye of little faith.

  12. Similar theme, milder treatment, nice short story hier.

    1. “I thought it over for a solid hour, and now I’m convinced God could do it.”

  13. I’m so tired of Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. Just go fight it out amongst yourselves somewhere and shut the fuck up.

    Maybe you could all have a massive showdown in the Middle East? You know, not the drawn out one that you’re having now, but the real, full blown deal. All religions enter, no religion leaves! It’s the TheocraDome!

    1. No can do. We’re The Religion of Peace.

      1. Leave us out of this one, Episarch.

        1. No t’anks, mon. It harshin’ me mellow.

          1. Hey, is it Devival time yet?

        2. I’m lighting my charcoal grill with a copy of The Watchtower on 9/11.
          Bring it on Bitchez!!1!

          1. Cool! We’ll bring you over a new copy!

    2. they have that already – it’s called “earth”.

      1. You think I don’t know the law? Wasn’t it me who wrote it?

        1. what we really need is some rich atheists to build an explicitly irreligious day care center five blocks from ground zero so a bunch of mooks from shaolin whose relatives had unfortunate work schedules can get really mad at something else that’s none of their business.

    3. It’d have to be in Oregon so the Mother Earthers get included.

    4. Can we also send the atheists who think their opinion on an entity that by their own admission doesn’t exist is important also go to the battle royale?

      1. If you can make a coherent sentence, maybe we can answer you. Remember: your god can’t write coherent sentences for you. You believe in Free Writing.

        1. That was pretty coherent, actually. Might have benefited from a comma or two but it made sense.

          1. Except that no atheist is interested in any “battle royale” over silly bleefs; we’re just tired of listening to supposedly intelligent people twaddle on about some sky-daddy.
            You could probably interest atheists in a battle when bleevers try to make government policy based on their superstitions.

          2. Theists seem to think that atheists “have an opinion” on some deity. We don’t. It’s like having an opinion on Santa Claus.

            1. No, not those, the religious atheists–you know, the ones who can’t keep their fucking non-belief out of any conversation? The ones who have to endlessly prattle on about ‘there is no god and you’re stupid if you think there is one’. The atheistic evangelicals.

              The ones who can’t understand that the West’s problem with Islam isn’t the religion–it’s the totalitarian ideology that goes with it–because any mention of faith short circuits their souless brains.

              Those people.

              And I think they would, very definately, like to get in on that battle royale.

              1. The ones who have to endlessly prattle on about ‘there is no god and you’re stupid if you think there is one’.

                [Citation needed]

                The ones who can’t understand that the West’s problem with Islam isn’t the religion–it’s the totalitarian ideology that goes with it–

                And that totalitarian ideology is based on a certain interpretation of the religion, is it not? So how should well intentioned people go about criticizing that ideology?

                Should all criticisms take the form of: “Oh, sure, the religion is totally fine. There are no evidentiary problems with it at all. It is just that the advocates of totalitarian ideologies based on it have interpreted it wrong.”?

                Shouldn’t we sometimes make the argument: “Excuse me, but what evidence do you have to support the idea that any of this stuff is true in the first place? And do you have the extraordinary evidence necessary given the extraordinary nature of your claims?”?

  14. Is there any symbology that a rational person should care about if it’s burned? Beyond allowing one to identify the belief set and the hateful nature of the individuals doing the burning, why should any rational person care? Go ahead and burn the Bible, a picture of my Mom, the flag, a Red Sox jersey, whatever. I don’t care.

    1. Well said!

      Could you post a picture of your Mom, though? I’d like to ejaculate on it.

    2. Compromising with other people, being sensitive to what they care about, whether we care about it or not, is kinda the foundation of civil society.

      In development, we cave to the opposition of the community all the time. Some of their concerns are things I couldn’t care less about–we take them into consideration anyway. It’s part of doing anything within a community.

      It’s also kinda a dangerous zone to be in, where you don’t think other people’s concerns should matter unless they matter to you too. That’s half a step away from a whole lot of ugliness.

      1. Compromising with other people…is kinda the foundation of civil society.

        Not when it comes to defending your principles. You shouldn’t betray your values to anyone, regardless of how much his feelings may be hurt.

        1. Yeah, I’m not talking about giving up your rights here. I’m not talking about using the government to enforce anything either.

          Sometimes I go to the movies, and people talk right behind me. Being part of society means being considerate of other people, whether you care about their enjoyment of the movie or not.

          I’m not talking about giving up on any principle here. I’m saying that just because I don’t particularly take offense at a Qur’an being burned, shouldn’t mean it doesn’t matter. Maybe I think it’s a crappy movie, so what? So the people in the back should get to talk the whole time?

          That’s all I was trying to say.

          1. Agreed that movie-talkers should be tased.

            1. Some might consider that racist.

              1. Some might do consider you racist.

            2. That’s not necessary, they do go to the special hell with the child molesters.

              1. So does Geoffrey Arend. Poor guy.

          2. Sometimes I go to the movies, and people talk right behind me.

            For fuck’s sake, dude, could you be a more obvious racist!!!! You have to at least try and code word it. You might as well have said it would suck if the first family sat behind you at the movies.

      2. I’m not talking about people who have irrational attachments to symbology. I’m trying to determine if there is any such thing as a rational attachment to symbology. I would argue that there’s not. And anyone who is offended by the burning of symbology is being inherently irrational.

        1. I would argue they’re being inherently human.

          Everybody’s got symbols they react to. The art world is full of that. Religion is full of that. Literature is full of that. Psychology is all about that…

          To rise above it all may be divine, but being susceptible to symbology is definitely human.

          1. At some point one wonders exactly why the symbol is attacked. It’s usually a lot of work to attack a symbol.

            Burning a symbol at home in the evening in your own fireplace doesn’t register much, but it’s easier.

            Ever dress up to go out? Ever wash your car? How about painting the house?

            If you have, then you’re not as much of an island against outside opinion as you may want to let on.

            Humans put effort into their interactions with others – it isn’t all meaningless – and when someone puts an effort in an attempt to attack some symbol that they at least think may mean something to you, it may signal something more than just the event itself.

            I’m not arguing for riots, just that ignoring such symbolic gestures is only possible if you possess the ability to deploy overwhelming force.

            1. Painting your house serves a purpose beyond aesthetics.

              1. True, except when you’re just changing colors.

              2. We’re goin’ all the way back to painting caves here…

                We’re probably talking about an evolutionary impulse, and if so, then insisting that people rise above their evolutionary impulses smacks of creationism.

                We painted pictures of animals on walls. We took various totems as symbols of our tribes. We use the eagle. The Russians use the bear. A football team in Chicago uses the bear too…

                You may not think much about it anymore, but symbolism may be the basis for the adaptation of speech. Isn’t the sound for “bird” a symbol for bird? …and even though honesty is a bit of an abstract concept, the sound for the word “honesty” really does seem to symbolize what honesty means… Connecting the things around us to the symbols everyone uses for them is part of going from infant to toddler–hard to imagine we’d ever learn to speak without being so intuitively and inherently symbolic…

                Expecting people to stop being susceptible to symbols may be something like ignoring 3.5 million years of human evolution. They’ve been a feature of our speech, art, and every other aspect of culture, universally, all along.

                Why should we expect Muslims to suddenly evolve beyond that–just because some idiot in Florida wanted to use it to offend them? The world’s hard enough to negotiate without conflating the way things are with the way things should be. The fact is that people get offended when you denigrate the things that symbolize what matters to them, and I wouldn’t begrudge any Muslim their humanity.

                This is actually a bit of a pet peeve of mine–I’m not saying this is what’s happening here, but every once in a while, I’ll come across a militant atheist who somehow thinks physical anthropology is all there is to hominid evolution. …and that’s just silly.

      3. KS, Well said, I agree.

  15. So much for the six O’clock news.

    Now for a steaming bowl of Allahbet goofy Kufic Koran soup- a sura in every spoonful!

    1. On the bright side, Diane Sawyer, Katie Couric et al are having to rewrite their 6:30 broadcasts. Scramble, newswhores! Whip the yokels into a frenzy!

      1. Could you post a picture of Katie Couric? I’d like to…

          1. We’re not going to levy any fines against you, Ms. Couric, because it would be highly misogynistic of us if we did.

  16. “Oh, and just while I was posting this, Jones said he was calling off his publicity stunt, having gotten all the publicity he needed, I suppose.”

    Latest word I heard, he canceled under the mistaken belief that the people behind the Ground Zero Mosque had agreed to move the site of the Mosque. The Ground Zero Mosque people are denying they’ve agreed to move the mosque…

    So, my guess is that as soon this minister gets the 411, it’s back to Plan A–American Guy Fawkes Day, every September 11. …and if no one else jumps on the bandwagon, I’ll be more than surprised.

    1. Ken, you are mistaken. If anyone was planning on building a mosque at Ground Zero, those plans have not gone forward.

      1. Technically, it’s the “Around the corner and a few blocks away from Ground Zero Community Center and Falafel Bar,” but that’s a little cumbersome.

      2. “Ken, you are mistaken. If anyone was planning on building a mosque at Ground Zero, those plans have not gone forward.”

        You wrote this three minutes before accusing Moynihan of nitpicking?

        1. Dude, talking to Tulpa is like trying to pick off all of a dog’s fleas with a pair of tweezers. You’re better off leaving it well enough alone.

          1. Real men pick the fleas off with their teeth. Or preferably, with wimps’ teeth they’ve knocked out.

            1. He said “a dog’s fleas” not “a hooker’s crabs”

  17. What’s worse: this stupid pastor’s publicity stunt or a gloating Hillary Clinton saying we’re better than said stupid pastor?

    1. Don’t you just love her new haircut?

  18. Come on, Moynihan, this is nitpicking. Suppose a rape was caught on video — does that mean that every news outlet reporting on the rape must show the video?

    And yes, analogy-challenged folks out there, I know that burning a book is not equivalent to rape. Look up analogy in the dictionary and come back when you’re knowledgeable enough to take part in the discussion.

    1. Look up crappy analogy in the dictionary

      FIFY

  19. Why would you insult Lemmy by comparing him to this baboon, Moynihan? Not cool.

    1. What Warty said.

    2. True, that ain’t right.
      “Don’t Need Religion”

    3. No voices in the sky/confusion blinds the eye
      Can’t take it with you when you die/no voices in the sky

    4. God Was Never on Your Side

      Let the sword of reason shine
      Let us be free of prayer and shrine
      God’s face is hidden, turned way
      He never has a word to say
      He was never on your side

      Seriously, Moynihan, you fucked up.

    5. Never insult Lemmy. That is almost worth rioting over.

  20. It doesn’t take much imagination to understand why Muslims would by offended by the burning of their holy book (or Christians, for that matter)

    It takes way the hell more than I have.

    I understand their using feigned offense as a weapon in a contest to establish social rank, because that’s something people actually do. I can’t imagine anyone being sincerely emotionally injured by anything more distant and abstract than a personally delivered “You’s a bitch, bitch.”

    Offense (as seen on TV) is more imaginary than Allah. “I’m offended” means “I’m an asshole,” and nothing else, ever.

  21. Too many column inches have already been devoted to the inarticulate pastor in a cheap suit…

    Shoulda stopped right there, Moynihan.

  22. Islam can’t be much of a religion if it can be destroyed by destroying a book.

    1. May I point out that a great many Christians suffered horrible deaths for either holding or denying* that a piece of unleavened bread actually became the flesh of Christ when a priest said “Hoc est corpus.”

      *Depending on which side of the argument the torturer and the victim were on.

      1. It’s insensitive to mention Christianity’s bloody history. I’m telling Hillary. The last thing we want is raging Dutchmen attacking our troops.

        1. raging Dutchmen

          Their second album was the best.

  23. Syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts declares that he is on the side of tolerance . . .

    you say he does that in every column, pats himself on the back, takes a huge self congratulatory dump? . . .

    1. Really, I reccomend reading his column on this matter, too lazy enjoying a smoke and drink to look up some tasty quotes for you, but it is the most narcissism disguised as compassion and fair mindedness I have seen since John Edwards delivered his acceptance speech.

      1. Man, I hate Pitts. He’s a terrible columnist, and this one is a pretty good example of why.

        Notice how he claims that the US has become more intolerant over the past few years, and more accepting of intolerance, especially as pertains to Islam. Well, bullshit. Yeah, some people are intolerant or bigoted or whatever and are doing things like having a Koran burning or protesting the building of a Muslim community center. But there are just as many, if not more, people who protest against these protests.

        And there are still more people who simply don’t give a shit because honestly, who cares? Can’t we all just exist?

        But no. The nation as a whole is more intolerant. That’s the conclusion he draws. What a self-righteous dick.

        1. You can’t just dismiss all the research that he does with a wave of your hand.

          Think of the countless minutes it took him to make up that column.

  24. In both ‘controversies’–the ICC and the Koran bonfire, the parties concerned have both the free speech and property rights to do what they plan.

    Since nobody has said it here yet, I will–there is no right never to be offended. And if we’re going to junk our legal system and traditions because of what some of the fanatically pious find outrageous, we’ve already lost the struggle.

  25. At least this will provide us with a funny South Park episode.

    1. Not if Comedy Central pusses out again…

  26. Be transgressive!

    NEA grant!

    Download a Koran and delete it!

    Or download a Koran – or Quran, if you’re anal – and make digital
    copies and delete them all. Send some copies to your friends with
    instructions to delete. A chain letter of deletions of Korans! Performance art!

    http://www.islamway.com/SF/quran/

    (If this were just to offend Muslims, who would care? But to offend the chattering classes – that makes it all worthwhile.)

    1. What about a virtual Koran-burning? Flash movie format, maybe? Shouldn’t be hard to do…

  27. Stupid Pastor Finished With Stupid Publicity Stunt

    This whole post is a complete fucking joke, right?

    This from the same site that promoted EVERYONE DRAW MUHAMMED DAY??? If burning the Koran is a publicity stunt, what was that supposed to be?

    And like the yokel in Florida, niether he nor reason had the guts to go through with it.

    -1

    Really, really tempted to make a drink worthy comment…

    1. Everone Draw Muhammed Day was an act in defense of free speech, of saying that the rest of us don’t have to follow Islam’s rules if we don’t want to.

      This Koran burning thing is designed just to piss off Muslims.

      There’s a bit of a difference.

      1. Anyone who thought that pissing off fundamentalist muslims was merely incidental to the appeal, effects, or import of Everyone Draw Muhammed Day was either delusional or dishonest. Free speech, yes. But also a jab in the eye for sure. A twofer, same as the burning the koran day, though the objectives were definitely weighted differently. The fact that the guy is a rube that speaks in tongues and keeps a log of his congregation’s bowel movements in the name of the lord is beside the point.

        And on the free speech front, Reason really failed at the project, with the failure to show submissions (which was a strongly implied part of the project) and banhammering the comments. That unsatisfactory follow through also puts Reason in company with him too, as far as islam-oriented publicity stunts go.

        And I say this with luv.

      2. But symbolically burning shit is free speech too…

      3. Everone Draw Muhammed Day was an act in defense of free speech, of saying that the rest of us don’t have to follow Islam’s rules if we don’t want to.

        This Koran burning thing is designed just to piss off Muslims.

        This is really a distinction without a difference.

        The entire reason that EDMD was a defense of free speech that said that the rest of us don’t have to follow Islam’s rules is because it was an event designed specifically to piss off Muslims.

    2. But this site and its posters have always defended individuals’ rights to burn their own dried plants. That would include trees.

      Just sayin’.

    3. You are right. We should have everyone burn the Koran day too. Jones is such an idiot that my first reaction was to be against the whole idea, but if assholes in Pakistan are going to riot anyway, fuck ’em. Burn their precious fucking book.

  28. I shit on Islam!

    Does that make me a yokel?

    I bet you know a thing or two about handling snakes.

    Really, I protest the justification for violence its doctrines promote. All you have to do is read it for yourself. The more you know, the less you like.

    But it is Islam and in 2010 it is sacrosanct. We elites admire its beauty, and its inspiration, and its complexities. Just look how it describes Heaven!

    So, yes, Howler, try not to let your slack jaw hit the ground.

    1. I bet you know a thing or two about handling snakes.

      I guess ‘no homo’ would be irrelevant in my case.

  29. Land of the free, home of the brave.

  30. An inconsequential pastor of a flyspeck church manages to get international attention because America’s elite class are so completely gunched up over the idea of Americans doing anything to offend Muslims. In a sane world this would have been a non-story and no one would know about Terry Jones except people in Gainesville.

    1. If any violence by Muslims is rationalized by Jones’s stunt, it owuld be evidence of the twisted morals and values of the person that perpetrated the violence.

  31. The Florida pastor is a fucking pussy for backing down on this. He’s going to let the FBI,Sarah Palin,the President, the Pope, a bunch of intolerant Allah-Fags and every other asshole in the world tell him he can’t burn his own books on his property.

    1. Perhaps. But I am praying about referring to “The Turd of Satan.”

    2. I heard on the radio that some liberal groups are going to hold a readings of the Koran on Sept. 11 in response to this. That is the stupidest f*cking thing I have heard of in my life.

      “Hey, to oppose censorship let’s celebrate a book that advocates censorship, along with stoning of adulterers, gays and everyone who is different!”

      Jesus christ it is hard to self-identify as a liberal sometimes.

      I think it’s goofy to want to burn anyone’s holy book, but I want to live in a place where if some goofy guy wants to he can without people reacting out of fear and/or silly sentimentality. Let there be no mistake, if he burnt it and crazy muslims attacked Americans for it, it would be 100% the responsibility of the crazy muslims and 0% this guys responsibility.

      1. Wow, I agree with MNG. I better note this date in my diary.

        1. Yeah… MNG made sense in that post. Wonder if he needs to check under his car for dangling wires or brake fluid dripping at a slow but not-normal rate?

        2. Dear diary,
          After waking up and yanking on my cold, lifeless man-taffy like I was trying to start a Honda lawn mower. I noticed something on H&R…

      2. Imagine if Andres Serrano voluntarily decided to remove “Piss Christ” from a NEA-funded exhibition after 2 visits from the FBI. What would they call that?

        1. Appeasement? Submission?

      3. Let there be no mistake, if he burnt it and crazy muslims attacked Americans for it, it would be 100% the responsibility of the crazy muslims and 0% this guys responsibility.

        Responsibility is not a zero sum game. If you let Michael Jackson babysit your kids (I’m going to have to replace this one at some point) then the fact that he shouldn’t be molesting them doesn’t subtract from your own responsibility in being an idiot.

        1. Although the government still shouldn’t make any attempt to stop him.

          1. The government made a full on, just short of overt force, effort to stop him.
            It worked too.

        2. True, but at some point people have to push back or else we end up owned by those fuckers. It’s less Michael and more mafia protection money. Not paying is reckless and stupid as far as your family’s safety is concerned, but it also ensures that everyone will continue to be exploited and intimidated.

          1. paying also ensures, that is.

          2. There’s a difference between not paying protection money and calling Tony Soprano’s mother a whore. There is furthermore a difference between calling Tony Soprano’s mother a whore while you’re 3000 miles away but your friends are right around the corner from him.

            I didn’t burn a Scientology book today. That doesn’t mean that Tom Cruise owns me.

        3. You are trying to evaluate an entirely subjective quantity that only comes to fruition depending on later actions:

          1) Petraeus says that it endangers the troops as it incites violence.

          2) but, does appeasement and success in getting what they want by claiming a grievance incite them to still more violence?

          Not only that, but think of the advantage of Petraeus’ claim to his own interest. It is believed among a set of his advisers that lowering the standard for the rules of engagement created by his predecessor may help raise morale among the troops. What better way to cover up the blow back that would potentially create by blaming it on this incident? If you don’t think generals are that cynical in their thinking, you don’t know generals.

          1. That was for some guy

          2. Nobody ever heard of this guy before, though. It’s not like they were burning Korans in peace for years, then some imam told them they have to stop. They specifically came up with this to incite violent retaliation against Americans. Sure, all the blame goes to the guy who pulls the trigger, but that won’t be much consolation to the person on the receiving end (who has nothing to do with this group.)

            Much like telling your boss to go fuck himself is within your First Amendment rights, that doesn’t mean you should do it.

            1. That was pretty much in response to the “appeasement” line.

              1. ‘Appeasement’ in my usage was aimed squarely at the reaction of officials from the President to the Pope (step back and think about it, that is incredibly ridiculous) who thought they needed to step in to protect the precious feelings of Muslims. Well, the vast majority of Muslim sensitivities did not need protecting as they went about their normal daily routines as the fact their economies did not collapse overnight would indicate, and those who did need protecting are too hair triggered to predict in regard to any action.

                As for the Tony Soprano analogy, if my friends were cruising around his neighborhood taking a few shots here and there and he didn’t already have them hacked to pieces than we can only assume Tony is a big ol’ pussy ready to be rolled, and whatever I had to say would hardly be relevant. If they get shot anyway, well, they are adults who volunteered to be bad asses in the first place. I’ll miss ’em but if I truly respect my friends the last thing they would want me to do is to think of them as victims of circumstance. They would not be my friends if they were not above victimology.

            2. Much like telling your boss to go fuck himself is within your First Amendment rights, that doesn’t mean you should do it.

              You should try it sometime. I did. Her reaction? She jumped my bones. I didn’t last there for more than a few months after that though. Her boss (and friend) got wind of the massive grudge fucking going on behind her back and decided somebody had to go.

              Now I don’t have bosses, and have not looked back, except for the sex. That was awesome. The office, sterile, dull, and I don’t think I could thrive in that kind of environment.

          3. 1) Petraeus says that it endangers the troops as it incites violence.

            I got news for Petraeus – the troops are in danger anyway, simply because they are over there. They are in a war afterall.

            2) but, does appeasement and success in getting what they want by claiming a grievance incite them to still more violence?

            Oh, most certainly it does. The way to get more of an action is to reward it. Submit a little today – submit much more tomorrow.

      4. Yes to MG.
        Similarly, a guy in Austria just got an extended jail sentence for “”re-engaging” in Nazi-era beliefs.”
        (check your fave AP retailer)
        Boy, am I glad the Europeans are over there and not here. If public assholery were illegal, how would Pelosi take one breath outside of jail?

        1. Oop:
          Yes to M*N*G

        2. European “hate speech” criminalization is abhorrent. Looks like we agree on two things today.

      5. That sounds like a kick ass plan. Where’s the reading, at a coffee house?

    3. He should have had an outdoor beer summit with O and have his sheeple light up the camp fire with the little book of hate and anger. Great photo op for O.

  32. For the record, assuming that Pastor Terry Jones finds a way to stay in the news–and I’m sure he will–please refer to him henceforth as. . .The Bishop!

    Sad that I have to point this out this far downthread.

    1. That was his stage name in his rasslin’ days, dude. How did you know?

    2. We was too late…the Reverend Grundy Pastor Jones bit the ceiling.

      1. THANK you.

        Okay, Devious. . .don’t move!

        1. Don’t say the kid’s name, Vic!

          1. We was too late. . .the Rev. Neuk saw the light.

  33. No, he’s just entering Phase II of his attention whoring.

  34. The real story here is that the official policy of America is that muslims are animals who cannot control their violent reaction if agigated. like sharks, you should not agravate or annoy them because they’re not humans and not responsible for their actions. They actually had the nerve to invoke “danger to American troops” from this supposed koran burning. And of course the muslims are already burning american flags, screaming and yelling – they didn’t even wait to see if the korans were actually set on fire.

    I’m not sure I agree that muslims are violent animals with no self-control, but if they are, they they need to be put down or caged, just like violent wild animals. We don’t let lions and tigers and bears roam free in our cities, and we certainly don’t bless their violence with constitutional protections.

    We can’t have it both ways: either muslims need to be held to the same standards as other human beings, or they need to be locked up like the animals they apparently are.

    1. This is a good one.

    2. We can’t have it both ways: either muslims need to be held to the same standards as other human beings, or they need to be locked up like the animals they apparently are.

      False dichotomy. You forgot: Other human beings need to held to the same standards as Muslims.

      1. wrong, because muslims aren’t be held to any standards at all, and nowhere did I say or imply that they were. So no false dichotomy. It’s either – or. Holding the rest of the world to the same standards as muslims makes no sense in the context of the point I was making.

      2. Other human beings need to held to the same standards as Muslims.

        So we should riot and then wipe them out?

        1. Better than sucking their asses – unless of course, one likes sucking ass.

    3. I’m not sure I agree that muslims are violent animals with no self-control, but if they are, they they need to be put down or caged, just like violent wild animals. We don’t let lions and tigers and bears roam free in our cities, and we certainly don’t bless their violence with constitutional protections.

      I agree that it would be much easier if radical Muslims (or violent fundamentalists in general) all had a large mane or orange stripes so that we could single them out and lock them in cages for our amusement.

      1. it would be much easier if radical Muslims (or violent fundamentalists in general) all had a large mane or orange stripes

        Or maybe if they just had anywhere near the amount of condemnation from the Islamic masses for actual violence that the Westboro goons get from our media and politicians for this attention whoring.

        Does anybody watching this little show from anywhere in the world take home the idea that everyone in the US is gung-ho about the Koran burning?

        I mean, without help from the Imam?

    4. So do we need to lock up all of the lions and bears too?

      I am not sure the wild animal analogy is terribly apt.

      1. Give BruceM a break — The Weekly Standard won’t allow comments so he has to post somewhere…

        1. I’ve never been called a right-wing conservative before. And I said I DO NOT think muslims are wild animals – that’s why they should be held to the same standards as people. But we act like they’re wild animals – “if the guy burns a koran the muslims won’t be able to control themselves and will become violent and will hurt US troops so he shouldn’t do it” is the official statement of the US gov’t, and it seems to be something everyone in the media agrees upon. The implication is that muslims are wild animals and cannot control their violent murderous ractions when agigated, like grizzly bears.

          I think muslims actually ARE human beings. Thus we need to stop giving them the benefit we give to wild animals based on the assumption of total lack of mentation and self control.

          Weekly Standard my ass.

      2. Either lock them up (in muslim zoos) or keep them out of our cities. No not every grizzly bear is locked in a cage, but we take every effort to keep them out of populated areas. We’ll even shoot them if they stray into someone’s backyard. If muslims cannot sit down, shut up, and not be violent when a koran is burned, then this is how we have to treat them, unfortunately. It’s NOT the fault of the guy burning the koran if muslims go wild and crazy in response. They have to learn to ignore it, or just use their mouths to express their anger. That’s what we expect from all human beings. Religion doesn’t change a damn thing.

  35. Speaking of the official reaction to. . .The Bishop!. . .if I were president, I’d have blown off the whole affair and treated it as below my dignity to acknowledge. Naturally, Obama could do no such thing. I bet he was planning to invite. . .The Bishop!. . .to the White House to have beers with Imam Whatshisname. Yeah, beers with a crazed fundamentalist and a Muslim, also possibly a little crazed. He’s that kind of president.

    1. Pro Libertate: I agree with you, but I don’t think any president could get away with saying any story is beneath dignity of the Office of the President. It’s just the way our media works. That reaction would then become a 24/7 news story and since the media would be pissed at the answer, they’d all get their “experts” to flap their heads in unison saying the president was wrong and that no story is beneath the dignity of the president. Not only would they get revenge but they’d think they’d have set a precedent for future presidential responses.

      1. Not the kind of presidents we elect these days, no.

        And it’s not just about dignity, it’s about power. The president is absolutely powerless to do anything about this pastor, unless he wants to have a drone kill him from a distance.

        1. According to Obama’s own words, this pastor is a threat to American troops, so he (says he) does have the power to assassinate him, even though he’s an american citizen on american soil.

  36. It’s official. Michael Moynihan is a disingenuous frickin’ idiot. Whether you agree, disagree, or don’t care one way or the other with the Pastor’s Koran burning, in exactly what way is this significantly different from Everyone Draw Mohammed Day, which Moynihan basically organized for Reason? Besides the fact that the “knuckle dragging lunatic’s” stunt is an expression of religious belief, while the Reason’s was more or less a strictly provocative act?

    Many of us warned of the negative blowback against Moynihan’s “publicity stunt”, but they went ahead with it anyway, even after the inventor of the idea backed away. Thanks partially to Reason, Pakistan and other Arab countries limited freedom to access the internet in their countries, cutting off dialogue that is necessary to reach those people with a message of freedom and tolerance.

    Frankly I could care one way or the other about either drawing images of Mohammed fucking goats or a religious nut burning a Koran (although the real world consequences probably make the actions not worthwhile). But how dare Moynihan act like he is really superior in some way to Terry Jones, when they are not that different?

    1. Does the intent of the message matter? In Reasons case it was a statement on freedom of speech. In Jones’ case, well, make your own judgement on what he’s trying to communicate.

      For the record, as far as I’m concerned, Jones can burn all the books he wants to, as long as he pays for them.

      1. Bullshit. It was a reaction to Comedy Central, a private company, censoring the South Park guys because of a fear of violent retaliation against their employees. Don’t get me wrong, I love South Park and wanted to see the whole thing, but there was no threat to our rights for free speech, at least none that threaten our rights to hold Everyone Draws Mohammed Day. Therefore the only logical reason is pure provocation. I think Reason was 100% in their right to do this, but to come back and say that this pastor is an attention-seeking idiot whose provocations were ill advised and will cause blowback when Moynihan basically led the charge on a nearly indistinguishable sort of provocative act towards the same people is utter hypocrisy. Moynihan’s stunt was about equally ill-advised as this pastor’s.

        1. There may not have been a threat to our rights to free speech, but there was a threat to free speech. Private entities can threaten free speech too. They should not be legally prevented from censoring what they want to on their own network, but reasonable people should protest it.

          1. This is true, although I fully understand why Comedy Central did not show the clip and why the pastor might cancel the flag burning out of self-preservation.

            But EDMD was arguably even more provocative than the pastor’s Quran burning. The pastor could easily justify what he is doing by pointing out examples where Muslims defiled crosses and burned bibles, and how hypocritical they are to be offended by him believing only his religion is correct, when they believe and act the exact same way. I’m as far from Islamophobia as can be, but the Quran calls for actually killing non-Muslims.

            EDMD was done simply to beat the hornet’s nest, with no gain for individual liberty here, and decreased individual liberty over there.

            Actual motives aside, the actions might be equally justified from a “our freedom is under assault from the Sharia law people (but not our own U.S. laws)” perspective, and for Moynihan to be utterly provocative and then to criticize this guy for being provocative to the same people is just pure hypocrisy.

      2. In Jones’ case, well, make your own judgement on what he’s trying to communicate.

        No, he is pretty clear about it. The Koran is a Satanic text of a false religion. Many commenters here would agree with half of that statement

  37. Such a delicious irony when all the people on the Left who not only defended but actually supported the probably insensitive construction of the mosque are now getting so offended when a display of insensitivity to Muslims occurs. Likewise, I suppose conservatives never thought that painting Muslims with a broad, offensive brush investigating Muslim clerics and waging war against the construction of the mosque in some cases with the full force of government, must never once have thought that the troops might get blowback from their own insensitivity as well – only when someone has the balls to do what they all probably really want to do deep down… Where is the line for either side? So many double standards. As a passive observer, the utter hackery is fascinating.

    1. The [planned] building of the mosque was not done for any other reason than they wanted a bigger and nicer mosque. The outrage was 100% fabricated.

      This guy was doing it explicitly to provoke others to violence.

      In both cases, the government has no business telling either one what they can or can’t do, of course.

      1. Couldn’t you say “The [planned] burning of the Koran was not done for any other reason than they wanted to express their absolute conviction in their own religious beliefs”? I haven’t heard the pastor attempting to provoke violence or threatening to kill Muslims. Really it’s some pieces of paper with writing on it that he bought, so I would defend him if he burned it, took a dump on it, dipped it in pork blood, etc. Were he more creative he would rip the guts out but keep the cover, insert the Bible’s text inside and stand outside mosques distributing it. As an individual I would not want to take part or be associated with the Koran burning out of self-preservation, and would probably discourage it if I were sitting at a table with him asking me what to do, I would say that I care about net liberty around the world, and I don’t see how this act increases liberty. But it does not offend me personally.

        Likewise, I defend the right to build the mosque and do not falsely conflate moderate Islam as expounded by the imam with 9/11, so have no problem with building it there. But I can see how others find it provocative and would ask that out of respect to their feelings they try to find a less divisive location. If the purpose of their Center was promoting understanding, they sure have muddied the waters by steadfastly refusing to recognize the reactions.

        In both cases, I’m not really offended by their insensitivity to the feelings of others and would defend their right to be insensitive to the death, but would still advise them to act differently if I had the opportunity. Said the same thing for Everyone Draws Mohammed Day, which I thought largely amusing but also counterproductive.

        1. If the “reverend” was real creative and truly wanting to make a point, he’d fly to Karachi and burn his Quran in the public square.

          If just one American is kidnapped and beheaded because of this toad’s act, I hope the people of Gainesville shun this asshole and his followers to the point they starve to death. And someone punishes the barbarians who believe someone burning their “holy book” justifies a death sentence.

          1. As I have said, it’s probably not a wise act. At the same time, if an American diplomat or soldier is killed because the act pisses some violent nut off, it will be because 1.) the guy is a violent nut and fully responsible for his lack of self-control; and 2.) because American foreign policy sticks too many Americans in places they have no real business being in. Terry Jones is not directly responsible for violent reactions to his freedom of expression, even if his decision to express himself knowing the potential reaction is a very bad idea.

  38. I think what fanatical muslims have learned today is that if you threaten enough fanatical violence Western types will cave. That’s the worst thing about all of this…It’s better to start standing up to them today before it becomes too late to do so at all…

    1. Whether or not Rev. Jones goes through with it, we know for a fact Fred Phelps won’t back down, so just brace yourselves because the wave of rioting, Bible and flag burning, etc. is coming, like it or not.

    2. il est trop tard pour s’en soucier

  39. FYI, Reason, if you ever again use the name “lemmy kilmister” in relation to a negative conitation: I’ll put a jihad on you.

    Otherwise, good points but I was so looking forward to the Koran BBQ fallout(or lack thereof).

    1. FYI, Reason, if you ever again use the name “lemmy kilmister” in relation to a negative conitation: I’ll put a jihad on you.

      Count me in.

  40. It’s a huge media story because it fits a certain narrative that asserts that Americans are increasingly Islamophobic. This narrative comes from a distinct American leftist ideology that asserts, as a tenet, that you shouldn’t say anything about negative about jihad or Islamic theocracies because it’s untrue, and you’ll encourage a jackass like Jones, which will wrongly inflame peacefully worshipping Muslims.

    It goes against the rightist narrative that insists that the inability to call out and indentify radical Islamists and Islam obfuscates the truth of certain events, and that this refusal hinders the indentification and proper understanding of those who seek to threaten legitimate national security aims.

    So Jones becomes a media story because of the prior media-politico sensationalism of the competing media and informational narratives about any issue relating to Islam. It’s a weird, post-modern fight that pits a story against a story, pits struggling narratives borne from a quest for political power against each other, dresses them up as discourse, the extremes of which are bronzed as worthwhile news to further the aims of one side’s power-seeking dialectic, in this case, the left’s.

    1. Boy, I thought I was clever, but I see the media/narrative issue was explicity debated and covered by tonight’s cable programming, from Anderson Cooper and company to Jon Stewart. Stewart even just used the word “narrative” for MSNBC’s and Fox’s media coverage. I didn’t see the whole segments, so my apologies for being redundant if it indeed was.

    2. But, come to think of it, I’m right. I’m watching Maddow talking about “Preacher” Jones. Her backdrop is Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and Glenn Beck, all linked together with the words “FEAR ITSELF” in a big, Halloween-esque font on the screen.

      Now I’m wondering why she isn’t the subject of a million news profiles, nicknames like “Crazypants,” excessive MSM hand-wringing, etc.

      I mean, talk about a partisan “narrative.” Beck’s much less unhinged than her current show’s logic is.

      Jones=BeckGingrichPalin

      I’m even forgetting which logical fallacy that is. Dear God.

      1. These people are terrible. There is only one consistent standard that is unbiased.

        Support the building of a mosque or an Islamic cultural center where such land to do so has been lawfully purchased.

        Support the burning of the Koran where the people doing so have purchased their own copies and are doing so on their own property. It isn’t a threat to anyone.

        Ditto for flags. You can have no doubt that choadwhore (thanks Max for a great new word!) Maddow would be the first to defend Jones if that is what he was burning and the entire force apparatus of the Federal Government was pressuring him not to do so.

        Support all of these activities in the name of freedom and stop trying to put a clip to your nose (Moynihan.) because you find the people doing these things to be unsavory, not up to the snuff of your peers, and their cooties might rub off on you. Grow the fuck up. Nobody was put on this planet to please your whims and fancies.

        1. Washington state’s department of ecology is moveing really close to banning all burning.

          I am thinking next time i have to burn some yard waste i am going to throw a Karon and an American flag in with it and use the freedom of expression defense.

  41. Burn all the Bibles you want. It’s the words that count, not the pages and the ink.

  42. Suddenly provocation of bullies is “stupid”? Most of the time you people are celebrating provocation in art/writing/music/atheism and everything else. But I guess its a different story if it’s a hick pastor with an uncool theme that grates against your reductio-ad-hitlerum-internet-warrior instincts. What a horrid horrid man he is for threatening to burn a pile of his private property.

    Who knows, this incident might have been the one that made the world finally decide the professional rage boys in the middle east need to grow up. But no we prefer the cowardly path today. Perhaps we will revisit the issue when someone sufficiently cool comes along to defend.

    1. I don’t have a problem with them exercising their right of free speech, but if you look up thread, you’ll see my problem with the Westboro group is that their ‘protests’ don’t have much to do with an actual stand. (to which I’d think you’d agree now that the ‘cancellation’ would provide more publicity than the burning)

      If they had an actual, you know, point, they might avoid the “stupid” label. But I find it hard to believe that they’re able to hate Gays, those that hate Gays, and those who try to kill the Gay haters all at the same time, simply because the one connecting thread of all this behavior is ‘publicity’.

  43. Burning doesn’t mean shit. I burn Reason magazine all the time, but the fucker comes back every damn month.

  44. Isn’t Terry Jones the guy who kept saying “Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more” to Eric Idle?

    1. Eric Idle said “Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more” to Terry Jones.

      Proper sketch, reversed actors–I bet you have a goatee!

  45. Of course, if Jones were smart, he’d have submerged the Koran in a jar of his own urine and displayed it as “Piss Koran.” Then all the bien pensants would be celebrating his clever transgressiveness, not denouncing him as a bigot. Right?

    1. Jones is a stupid bigot. And no amount of cleverness could hide that fact. But he can still burn a stupid bigoted book if he wants to.

    2. Wrong — he’d be simply ripping-off Serrano.

  46. So, it may be over. Threats of violence, FBI visits and once again, we cave.

    And now we know the Cordoba House 9/11 Mosque and Islamic Community Center will be built–Imam Rauf has placed the unspecified Islamic violencve card.

    So we can all shut up now and get back to saving up to pay our jizya.

  47. Apparently, the burning is back on….? It was off when Jones thought they were gonna move the mosque, but they’re not, so it’s back on–but it could be off again if the planners of the mosque will meet with him tomorrow.

    11 people already hurt in protests over this–already violent and nothings happened yet.

    Damn–I should be getting ready to be a good dhimmi instead of holding out the hope that we’ll get a spine.

    1. Where the fuck does this leap to islamic law being imposed in the US come from? Someone is building another mosque in NY. Oh no, the next logical step is full legal imposition of sharia in the US. I think you forgot about step 2.

  48. Doncha love how burning a Koran is horribly provocative, but running tens of hours of news coverage about it is not?

  49. Rackspace, which hosts this website, yanked Jones’s site today, establishing an editorial policy, it seems, on what its customers can say about religion. That is, of course, their right.

    It’s their right to change a contract after the fact?

    If a minor league pastor in Florida can cause masses of people to hit the streets in Pakistan, perhaps the problem lies more in Pakistan than in Florida.

    I don’t think you figured that out all by yourself.

    As opposed to Moynihan’s completely predictable PC dhimmitude, Coulter’s expose of Mickey “Big Mouth” Obama’s silly hypocrisy was pretty funny.

    Damn–I should be getting ready to be a good dhimmi instead of holding out the hope that we’ll get a spine.

    You’ll be able to get all the lessons you need right here at this very website.

    1. Sadly this is true. I’ve long come to understand that for many ‘libertarians’ the one thing that must never be done is defending liberty in the face of an ideology that seeks to crush it.

      1. That is just fucking stupid. Which libertarian said that? And stop pretending that this is somehow parallel to the NYC moque-ish thing.

        1. Ferget it, Zeb — people who use the term ‘dhimmi’ get their news from Debbie Schlussel or Little Green Footballs.

  50. This libertarian’s response to both the preacher tard and the Muslim tard is pretty much the same:

    They both have the right to do what they want, and they’re both idiots for doing it.

    What I find interesting is the governmental response to both the tards. The Muslim tard gets waved past all the usual obstacles to doing what he wants (zoning, etc.) and gets the tepid support of Our Masters in DC. The preacher tard, by contrast, gets landed on with both feet (rhetorically) by our Our Masters.

    To me, the preacher tard is more deserving of libertarian support, because he, at least, is being opposed by Our Masters.

    1. Do you completely rule out the possibility that Our Masters mean what they say when they say that the opposition to Jones is out of concern for American interests that might get harmed by asshole rioters?

      1. And by American interests of course you mean the American troops that we continue to choose to put in harm’s way. In order to pursue the important agenda of “protecting Afghan civilians”. Clearly this agenda trumps that whole protecting the constitution thing.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.