Religion

Free Speech for Terry Jones!

The idiotic reaction to a lunatic cult leader

|

Terry Jones, the crackpot Christian cultist with the Lemmy Kilmister mustache, was "hateful" and "intolerant" when he burned the Muslim holy book last month, said Gen. David Petraeus, commander of American forces in Afghanistan. Mark Sedwill, NATO's ambassador to Afghanistan, denounced Jones's stunt as "an act of disrespect to the Muslim faith and to all peoples of faith." Faced with crowds of braying and baying religious fanatics, it's doubtless true that countless soldiers and diplomats feel the same.

It would be nice if Petraeus and Sedwill would spare a word for the immutability of freedom of speech, no matter how lunkheaded or convoluted the "message" from Jones, but their reactions—merely attempts to calm the crowds—are both understandable and necessary. When a press-hungry lunatic, whose appetite for television time is consistently satiated by self-righteous members of the media, is providing violent lunatics with a pretext to behead civilians, it is hardly unreasonable to point it out that his "political statement" is "disrespectful." But in a media culture that demands apportionment of blame, so mindlessly displayed after the shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords, it's rather important to confront those who hold the non-violent fundamentalist responsible for the actions of the violent ones.  

So when Fox News host Bill O'Reilly bleats that Jones has "blood on his hands" for burning a copy of the Koran, he treats the killers' justifications—we were driven to murder by a Florida pastor with a flock of 20—as somehow legitimate. Members of the religious right, as many demonstrated during the Salman Rushdie affair, are often the first to denounce agitation against other religions, concerned both that they could be charged with hypocrisy when demanding special protection for Christianity and that their faith could be the next target.

But it has been a bipartisan parade of buffoonery, with left-wing radio host and Kremlin check-casher Thom Hartmann wondering if Jones could be "tried for treason" or, failing that, if book burning could be prosecuted as a "hate crime." Nor must one strain to find bloggers and pundits exploiting the Jones stunt to issue dire warnings about American Islamophobia.

Which raises a question: How would these same pundits, left and right, react if a band of mouth-breathing Christians, angry at the rather more serious problem of Christian converts in Afghanistan being sentenced to death for apostasy, set upon and hacked to death a group of vaguely Middle Eastern looking immigrants? Where is the locus of blame to be placed? Upon the murderers? Or the government (not private citizen, as in the Jones case) of a foreign country, meting out prison sentences for freely practicing an "alien" religion? This doesn't suggest so much political correctness as it does contempt for non-Western Muslims. If we don't play by the rules set down by the most retrograde practitioners of the faith, the gangster class of Islam, then "a billion Muslims" will sharpen their scimitars and let NATO employees have it.

But the most shameful reactions have come from the Senate, where both Democrats and Republicans determined, as they frequently do, that in "wartime," the constitution should be ignored, if not nullified. Here is Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), when asked what was to be done about Terry Jones: "I wish we could find a way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war." And Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), wondering how the Senate could get its grubby hands around the First Amendment: "We'll take a look at this of course…as to whether we need hearings or not, I don't know." The vulgar little crook and American client Hamid Karzai, of course, did everything possible to stoke the embers of hatred in Afghanistan—a country with one of the world's highest rates of illiteracy—calling attention to Jones after the rest of the world had stop paying attention. (The United States has an unfortunate history of thuggish puppets, but the point is to have a pliant client; Washington turns a blind eye to the nasty bits because a Somoza or Shah will unquestioningly do America's bidding, right?)

What is most dispiriting is not how frequently hyper-sensitive religious adherents denounce free speech, but the long history of Western intellectual complicity in calls for self-censorship. When Salman Rushdie published The Satanic Verses, earning him a fatwa from Ayatollah Khomeini (a sort of Booker Prize for Persian fundamentalists), former President Jimmy Carter wrote that he "must have anticipated a horrified reaction throughout the Islamic world" and that the novel was "an insult." A mild book (and its mild author) is, therefore, to be held partially accountable for the campaign of terror it "produced." John Berger, John Le Carre, and Roald Dahl all echoed Carter, suggesting that the problem with The Satanic Verses wasn't the bearded psychopaths in Tehran, but with the bearded author in London.

And before Rushdie, it wasn't uncommon to hear pleas that musicians and writers temper "controversial" messages in their art, lest those sensitive, damaged, and easily-provoked members of society act out in response. When two teens committed suicide in 1985 after, their parents insisted, listening to the heavy metal band Judas Priest, lawyers claimed that the band's record labels—or publishers, or cracked preachers—"have a duty to be more cautious when you're dealing with a population susceptible to this stuff." In other words, in art, culture, and debate, it will be the deranged that set limits on speech.

If we followed this sage advice, ours would be a world without South Park, hip-hop, Christopher Hitchens—anything that could be considered offensive by a "susceptible" or aggrieved group. And if Harry Reid or Lindsey Graham think it's a swell idea to prevent the burning of the Koran, I can only recommend that any Mormons angry with Matt Stone and Trey Parker burn down the Eugene O'Neill Theatre. We wouldn't blame you. You were, after all, needlessly provoked.

Michael C. Moynihan is senior editor of Reason magazine.

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.

185 responses to “Free Speech for Terry Jones!

  1. Freedom of speech means you’re free to say what we deem right and appropriate. Anything else is intolerable, and you will be punished!

    1. we already were punished

      1. There are zombies in Afghanistan? Who knew!

    2. You have the right to free speech . . . as long as you’re not dumb enough to actually try it!

      1. Free speech is a right, S’ingTFU is a privelege.

    3. I used to watch Firing Line back in the day and I remember Bill Buckley once saying that the purpose of the 1st amendment was to protect “good speech”. What can one say?

  2. Why can’t Terry Jones be tried for treason…Oh, I know why: HE’S A WHITE-MALE CAPITALIST CHRISTIAN!

    …Send in the clowns.

    1. Don’t send in the clowns!

      Anyone but them…

      1. I can’t search youtube, but the Kinks do have a song Death of a Clown.

      2. How about this evil clown

        http://rookery.s3.amazonaws.co…..5×1000.jpg

    2. Actually you hit the nail on the head. The common theme in all the examples given in the article, are that the things it’s “ok” to try and censor, and things that offend minorities. If it offends whites, you’re “intolerant” if you want to censor it, but if it offends muslims or blacks, you’re “intolerant” if you allow it to continue. It’s a pathetic double-standard that I hope everyone recognizes.

    3. Why can’t Terry Jones be tried for treason? Oh, I know why: HE DIDN’T COMMIT A TREASONOUS ACT.

  3. I can’t wait to fuck his faggoty ass with my red-hot, multi-pronged cock.

    1. now is that gonna be pay-per-view?

      1. Does it involve milk enemas?

      2. Gay-per-view, I think.

    2. You take a Chinese AMEX?

    3. I understand it’s barbed, with the barbs pointing toward the base, so that on the return stroke . . .

      Well, you know.

      Anyway, is that true?

    4. Hey, how come I get called “racist” for using word like chinks and beaners yet nobody’s calling you homophobic for using faggoty? See, this is the reason I fucking hate liberals! You’re a bunch of hypocrites who never ever practice what you say!

      1. You wanna fuck with Satan, be my guest.

  4. I don’t know about the rest of y’all, but I’m planning on celebrating Burn a Koran Day this year by torching a copy in my backyard. And then publishing pictures of the act on Facebook.

    If those animals want to freak out over nothing, I’ll give them more nothing to freak out about.

    1. All religion is stupid. People should be able to burn any religious article the please, as long as it’s theirs.

    2. Burn a Koran, a Bible, a Star of David, a copy of Atlas Shrugged, a copy of Dianetics, Mao’s book, and a cross wrapped in an American flag. Get everyone* pissed off.

      *I was thinking about what to burn to piss off environmentalists, then I realized the carbon output alone would do that.

      1. “I was thinking about what to burn to piss off environmentalists”

        A nice coal fire should do the trick. You will get hungry from all of that book burning, so take advantage of the fire and fry yourself up some spotted owl eggs.

      2. Burn one of Paulie Krugnut’s books… that’ll piss off the Keynesianites.

  5. I really hope South Park does an episode about Quran burning. Granted, they’ve done several episodes about “sensitive Muslim” violence already, but still.

    I wonder if Comedy Central would black out a cartoon picture of a burning Quran?

    1. Just noodling on this a bit, but aren’t all religious texts and, well, everything else subject to entropy? So aren’t all of these books slowly decaying into ash, so to speak? Who is responsible for that?

      1. Can you get in trouble for desecrating the Ebook version?

        1. I don’t see why not. I suppose it might be objectionable even to have a digital version.

          Can we get a ruling here?

          1. get in trouble for desecrating the Ebook version

            Only if you use this 🙂 for Mo’s face

          2. Google says it’s available in at least 34 languages. If I render it in Comic Sans do I need to build a safe room?

            1. You might be able to fight off the radical Muslims . . . or the pissed-off graphic designers . . . but I’m not sure want to take on both of them at the same time.

            2. What’s the official position on translating the Koran from the original, holy Arabic?

              1. I think you’re cool as long as the Arabic is also presented.

              2. Generally frowned upon.

          3. The Islamo-clowns to get their panties tied up in knots over modern technology. When NASA welfared a Malaysian to the Space Station while back, there was special committee of Muslim ‘scholars’ to help poor Space Ali figure out…wait for it…

            Figure out which way to pray to Mecca given Ibn Astro was going faster than Mohammed when he ass-rode Gabriel to the seven levels.

            These are the questions regarding space-travel that occupy a devoted religious nutter’s mind…or a chimp’s.

            1. Which way to pray when on a space journey was covered, albeit briefly in Pitch Black.

            2. I believe that the decision on the direction of prayer question was “toward the earth”.

              1. It’s really the only answer, given the velocity of an orbiting shuttle (or the ISS).

        2. I know there’s a Kindle/kindling joke in there somewhere, but I can’t quite put it together.

          1. Priceless

      2. I may be just making this up, but I think that the real religiously correct way to dispose of a damaged Koran is to burn it. Just like the flag.

      3. Entropy rules, let’s speed it up.

  6. I find it interesting that public figures are popping up with Python names. First, Sarah “Michael” Palin, now Terry “Terry” Jones. Keep your eyes out for a Chapman, Cleese, or Gilliam. Or maybe a Cleveland.

    1. Steve Chapman writes articles for reason.

      1. I was thinking a little more public than that. . .no offense to our esteemed editors and writers hereabouts.

        1. You’ll take it and like it.

          1. It’s a lame offering (no offense, again, to everyone not named Episiarch).

            1. That’s why I offered it to you.

              1. I reject your offering and substitute my own.

    2. No public figured who are Idle?

      1. I can’t think of anyone with that name, though the state of idleness, yes.

      2. There is Billy Graham Chapman.

  7. The Onion: myth or fact?

    1. You can say that again!

  8. The Onion: myth or fact?

    1. Wow, and I only clicked once on the ‘submit’ button.

      1. You lie!

  9. Very well said. Where’s the link to the Everybody Draw Mohammed Day pics?

    1. Yeah, where is it?

    2. Let me know when you find out. I have a frame-worthy piece drawn on construction paper with a pork-colored crayon.

  10. The soft racism of low expectations should apply to Jones just as it apparently does to Muslims.

    “He can’t help it; he’s a hick pastor. We need to hold Zippo accountable for this!”

  11. Alt-text win!

      1. Wow. That’s awesome.

      2. I was hoping for an Ace of Base cover.

      3. A group from N.J. called Everlounge did a sped-up countrified version of it.

    1. Do you think he was shouting “Honesty and greed, the only god I need…” as he was setting the Koran on fire?

      That would be pure awesomesauce if he did.

    2. I’d think this song would be more appropriate…

  12. Burning a Qu’ran as a stupid stunt in south Florida: hateful and intolerant.

    Incinerating a couple of Third World children with million-dollar ordinance: regretable.

  13. So when Fox News host Bill O’Reilly bleats that Jones has “blood on his hands” for burning a copy of the Koran, he treats the killers’ justifications ? “we were driven to murder by a Florida pastor with a flock of 20” ? as somehow legitimate.

    “Up is down. And People are not responsible for their own actions.”

    1. Why do you make me hit you!

    2. Why can’t Jones be stupid and evil for performing the act and the idiots who killed people over it be stupid and evil for killing people over it, too?

      1. I’ll go with stupid, but evil seems like a stretch.

        1. Yeah, well, I’m not thrilled with the guy. Though he has the right to do what he did, and killing people over it is evil.

          1. plenty of leftists are all over jones for this. i don’t recall any of them being all over scorcese for last temptation, or serrano for piss christ (crucifix dunked in urine) and the latter was even publically funded.

            it’s heckler’s veto 101.

            1. I don’t know, maybe I just don’t like the guy. I definitely agree that it’s the hypersensitive that are the problem in these cases.

              God is capable of killing all by Himself, right? So I don’t get why some people feel they need to get into the action.

              1. “It must feel good to God. He does it all the time. God’s terrific! He dropped a church roof on 34 of his worshippers in Texas last Wednesday night, just as they were groveling through a hymn to his majesty. Don’t you think that felt good? “

              2. i like that he has exposed the speech nazis on the left and their hypocrisy. i recall when some activist group in san fran interrupted a catholic mass and desecrated the host and they APPLAUDED it as an act of civil disobedience

                and of course oreilly et al were all up in arms, but nobody recommended anybody be killed nor was anybody killed

                now, when some dipshit burns the koran, an entirely legal act that infringes on nobody’s rights, there are plenty of them (take a gander at democratic underground for example) who say he should be “charged with incitement”

                seriously. it’s just amazing

                1. Personally I think Jones has a right to do it. But I think you have a right to yell fire in a crowded theater.

                  But I can understand how people who hold the belief that the first amendment does not cover speech that motivates people to harm, intentionally or not, would think Jones’s actions are not covered by said amendment.

              3. God is capable of killing all by Himself, right? So I don’t get why some people feel they need to get into the action.

                Adam Carolla had a really good theory on this. I’ll try to paraphrase:

                At some point the Muslim Extremists were sitting over in the middle east, bitching about Satellite TV, nudity and all of the other decidedly western imports, and they said, “Oh, these infidels are gonna burn for this… Allah will not let this stand.”

                When nothing happened, they upped the rhetoric, using all of the great medieval language about infidels burning in a thousand fires of hell for their infidelity blah blah.

                Nothing happened. At some point, one of the Imams finally said to his followers, “Ok, we’ll give it through the weekend, if Allah hasn’t done anything about these infidels, we’ll do something about them.”

                1. To that, I respond that God will do or not do His punishing in His own sweet time. Isn’t it the ultimate in hubris and even blasphemy to punish when He hasn’t seen fit to do so Himself?

                  1. “God’s a champ. He always stays ahead. He got 140 Filipinos in one plane crash last year.”

                  2. This concept hinges on the idea that a person’s actions are completely independent from God’s will. A point not agreed upon by any religion.
                    My name is Earl (Paraphrased) “Karma used my fist!”

                    1. Should have replied to ProLibertate @6:35 PM

                    2. No free will, no point.

                    3. That theory assumes that Jihadists attack America because of our values and culture – the old “they hate us for our freedom” shtick.

    3. I used to be an O’reilly fan, but no more. He has been taking some incredably stupid comments lately. And I am sick of hearing him defend Obama

    4. Bill O’Reilly is god to the gap tooth, bible thumping, NASCAR loving sister fucking, warmongers. But to intelligent people he’s just another dickwad!

    5. O’Reilly is a twit, and I’m being VERY kind here.

      The only people with blood on their hands are the ones who went fuckin’ nutters over burning a fuckin’ book.

      Period.

      Same goes for the ones who went apeshit-crazy over Draw Mo’ Day.

  14. some say I’m taboo, but those camelfuckers really stole my thunder. Those niggers.

  15. And if Harry Reid or Lindsey Graham think it’s a swell idea to prevent the burning of the Koran, I can only recommend that any Mormons angry with Matt Stone and Trey Parker burn down the Eugene O’Neill Theatre. We wouldn’t blame you. You were, after all, needlessly provoked.

    Sleazeballs like Harry and Lindsey always find fault with people’s freedoms, seldom with the actions of others.

    1. More free speech. Fuck the ragheads!!!

      http://media.eleconomista.com……-Nunez.jpg

      1. You’re intolerant. You probably just killed a soldier.

        1. I, ummm, just killed a few million… ‘soldiers’… looking at those pics.
          -K

  16. But the most shameful reactions have come from the Senate, where both Democrats and Republicans determined, as they frequently do, that in “wartime,” the constitution should be ignored, if not nullified.

    Aren’t we always at war anyway…in defiance of the US constitution which says common defense, not pre-emptive wars, or humanitarian intervention, or spreading democracy, or protecting other countries, or heaven forbid the truth….that we need to keep the markets open? The USC has had nothing to do with our government for a long time.

    1. Yes, coming in second worst (to the murderers) are the politicians that want to violate our rights.

  17. Why do only some monotheisms get crazy-cult leaders and others do not?

    I’m no Christian – nothing else either – but I don’t get the accommodation of crazy Muslims burning God (pun!) knows what while the Jesus-nutters can’t even torch one (apostate English translation) Koran for Youtube giggles. What a double-standard.

    1. There are a few Hindu radical nationalist groups in India, but by and large, you’re right. I think it’s because the monotheists are the ones who each claim to have the “only true way”, whereas a lot of the pagan-esque religions basically say that it’s all good in the hood as long as you’re cool with everybody (many paths to enlightenment, etc).

      I would like to see a crazy animist or wiccan priestess go on a killing spree through a Church of Christ some Sunday morning, just for shits & grins. Can you imagine the medias problems with reporting it? It just doesn’t fit the narrative.

      1. Give it time “Climatetites” will have Greening days, where people will be buried alive to trap the toxic carbon in the earth where it belongs.

        (Keep the Devil down below)

      2. What about ALF, Jim? (And not the muppet either.)

  18. You know who else didn’t support Freedom of Speech during wartime?

    1. Lincoln? Wilson? FDR?

        1. The Talking Heads?

      1. Guess again.

    2. You know who else didn’t support Freedom of Speech during wartime?

      The Talking Heads?

      1. Fuckin’ Ska. Too lazy to post a link…

        1. Hey man, I already said I couldn’t post youtube vids in reference to the Kinks above.

  19. As far as I know, the last time America declared war was in 1942, and the official termination of those hostilities was in 1951.

    Since there is no “war” as defined by Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, there is no basis for abridging or limiting Americans’ right to free speech, is there?

    1. Even during official wars, there’s no basis for doing that, but there’s even less basis for these unwars we’ve been conducting.

      One thing to keep in mind: If Obama decides to launch all of our nukes, he’ll likely do so without Congressional authorization. In fact, he probably thinks he doesn’t need it to nuke anyone, since by seeking it, he’d be warning the world of his intentions.

      World is a fucked up place, ain’t it?

    2. And none have been justified.

    3. The current ruling of the Supreme Court is that Congress can, if it chooses, title a declaration of war an “Authorization to Use Military Force”, and it’s still a declaration of war under Article I section 8 just the same.

      So war was declared on Iraq on January 14, 1991; that war resulted in a cease-fire on February 28, 1991. War on Iraq was declared again on October 16, 2002.

      War was declared on September 18, 2001 “against those nations, organizations, or persons [the president] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons”.

      1. Of course it can name a war resolution whatever it wants to. It’s silly to argue otherwise.

      2. I was thinking about that, too. I think the AUMFs are valid exercises of Congressional war-making power. They actually might be argued to impinge on the president’s war powers. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

  20. What’s wrong with burning the Koran?It’s just a bunch of violent fairytales.Islam sucks because it was founded by a mass murderer and a pedophile,the false prophet Muhammed who raped a nine year old girl.

    1. INFIDEL! I KEEL YOU!!

      1. p.s. I hate being reminded that Mohamet got more pusseh than I ever will.

        1. I had no choice in the matter. I was a kid, for Allah’s sake! You should have seen what Mo-hed did to get his brother’s wife! Mo-hed never did take “no” for an answer.

    2. “false prophet”? as opposed to all those real ones.

      I agree on the mass murderer and pedophile points, but Muhammad had nothing on Moses as far as war crimes go

      1. Exactly.

      2. Huh? Moses never entered the Promised Land; Muhammad led his conquering armies personally.

        Now, Joshua, he racked up a bunch of war crimes, sure, but Moses?

      3. Since we’re not even sure whether Moses existed, I have to give the hat-tip to Mohammed here.

    3. She ask for it!

  21. “””was “hateful” and “intolerant” when he burned the Muslim holy book last month, said Gen. David Petraeus, commander of American forces in Afghanistan. “”‘

    So was it hateful and intolerant when the US military burned lots of bibles in Afghanistan a couple of years ago? Or is it ok to burn bibles in Afghanistan but hateful to burn one koran in the USA

    “”Military burns unsolicited Bibles sent to Afghanistan”””

    http://articles.cnn.com/2009-0…..s=PM:WORLD

    1. Seriously, fuck Petraeus

  22. I’m waiting for the ‘If you’re not burning a Koran then you have nothing to worry about.’ response for why trying Terry Jones for treason is ok.

    1. If you’re not burning a Koran, you have nothing to worry about.

  23. Eh…..It’s his Constitutional freedom to, but I don’t really support burning books of any kind, even if it’s Mein Kampf.

    1. I agree, the Koran should be buried in pig shit.

    2. I support burning Gutenberg Bibles, Caxton Chaucers, and First Folio Shakespeares if you so desire and they’re your property. I’m totally opposed to cutting up vintage fashion magazines and selling the ads on eBay.

  24. Burning a document held in symbolic regard.

  25. So, the guy in charge of burning women and kids’ houses and villages thinks bookburning is bad.

  26. Are you ever really anybody unless you’ve had a Fatwa issued for your death?

  27. The jackoff Gen. David Petraeus, needs to concentrate on winning a war. Not first amendment rights that is a concern for those much more intelligent than him!

    1. Um… concern for the safety and effectiveness of his soldiers is the only reason he issued the release in the first place.

  28. May 1st is burn the Koran day:

    Take dozens of old paperbacks, wrap them in white paper with the word ‘Koran” on the cover, and burn them one by one. Post the video. Ragheads won’t understand.

  29. Laws against these actions are a pointless idea, but I do think government has the right and responsibility to actively discourage religious extremism. Secular doesn’t have to mean neutral on the question of whether Jeebus hates “Ragheads.”

    1. Terry Jones believed he was discouraging religious extremism. Notice how he chose the QURAN to burn, rather than the Tora or whatever Hindus read or a book by Richard Dawkins?

    2. “Government has the right and responsibility…” You just endorsed slavery. We have the right and responsibility to now enslave you, evil boy.

  30. Petraeus is a traitor. A soldiers swears to uphold and defend the constitution, they take an oath to defend America. Instead he’s treating Terry Jones like he’s the enemy while trying to avoid offending the Afghanis.

    Excuse me? Hey Petraeus, who are you fighting for? Have you switched teams? Terry Jones is an American! And if he wants to burn a quran, then he should say “I don’t agree with what he’s doing but I support his right to do it.”

    In fact, burning qurans is a very productive way to fight radical Islam. It gets their attention, it shows them that they’re not in charge of us, and if God forbid Terry Jones is killed by one of those Muslims, we’ll have Quran burnings all over America, mark my words.

    1. Why do you hate the troops and want to encourage Muslims to kill them?

      I’m sure you’d be equally enamored with the first amendment if a group of Muslims burned Bibles. Of course, thanks to your ilk, they are harassed for wanting to build a place of worship!

      1. Muslims are killing our troops because they are infidel invaders, Tony. They’d still be killing them if they had never heard of Terry Jones.

        For once, I agree with Greg ^. Petraeus has a habit of meddling in domestic issues and giving his opinion when it isn’t needed – and the fact that he’s universally lauded by both parties convinces me he’s no good.

        1. I think he’s OK trying to protect troops. The fact is there was a riot caused by this action. The first amendment is fine–as the Phelps family knows.

          1. Correction: it caused nothing — it was used as a justification. This is not a cause and effect scenario; the choice to riot lies solely with the rioters. It does, that is, if you regard them as human beings and not something somehow lower.

          2. Tony, the twat who burned the Koran did not cause the Muslims to commit violence… THEY OVERRODE THEIR INTERNAL SELF-CONTROLS over it.

            They *chose* to kill, cause harm, and destroy property.

            Jones is a fucktard, but anyone willing to behead totally innocent people over what Jones did, is infinitely worse.

    2. You didn’t work “BetrayUs” in there. Sort of a missed opportunity.

      1. I bet those peoples heads were thinking that as they rolled down the dirt road.

  31. The funny thing is that according to official religious law, a translation of the Koran is not considered a Koran. Only an original-Arabic version is.

  32. “When a press-hungry lunatic, whose appetite for television time is consistently satiated by self-righteous members of the media”

    But enough about Obama…

    1. He’ll be here all night, folks

  33. In other words, in art, culture, and debate, it will be the deranged that set limits on speech.

    Brilliantly stated, sir.

  34. First, Terry is an imbecile period.

    Second, anyone that is incapable of managing their anger and thinks it’s okay to kill others because they are angry is an imbecile of a different color. The blame for murder and violence is always on the one committing the act.

    The fact is, the Muslim extremists do not need excuses to act out, they act out whenever the damn wind blows.

    I can understand people in government and on TV being upset, but if anyone attempts to offer a “solution” we are all fucked.

    1. Well-put.

      Too bad idiots like MediaMyrmidons don’t “get” it.

      1. They only “get it” when it suits their own position.

  35. Wait, why aren’t there hordes of angry Christians killing atheists when you can YouTube videos of bible burnings? Why are Christians still going to Islamic countries to do missionary and humantarian work when they can be killed for being dhimmini?

    This reflects poorly not on Jones, who’s just one fringe pastor, or Christianity, which at least nominally in the New Testament preaches tolerance and love, but on Islam and the arrested development of Islamic countries.

    But even then, it’s not nearly as embarassing as it is to the United States, a secular country that is supposed to defend EVERYONE’S right to free expression.

    1. Hey, that’s the name of the show!

  36. “This reflects poorly not on Jones, who’s just one fringe pastor, or Christianity, which at least nominally in the New Testament preaches tolerance and love, but on Islam and the arrested development of Islamic countries.”

    And on all the mainstream media bobbleheads in this country who’ve heaped about 10,000 times as much condemation on the preacher for burning a book as they have for those who have actually murdered people “supposedly” in reaction to it.

    1. It reflects the bias of civilization

  37. Lars Vilkes, Theo Van Gogh, Salman Rushdie, Jyllands-Posten.

    What the above teach you is that the soldiers of Allah are easily incited to violence.

    If you want to express yourself freely, you’d better arm yourself to the fucking teeth.

    Maybe that’s why the 1st and 2nd amendments are in sequential order in the US Constitution.

    1. I agree and wrote about why, and why we shouldn’t interfere

  38. Pastor Jones is a fool of fools, in that burning that Quran, he alienated Muslims who are sympathetic to our cause, much like how these protesters alienated Catholics who were sympathetic to their cause .

    But some people claiming that Jones was responsible for those murders makes Jones sympathetic.

  39. I say, provoke away. Sure, our diplomatic corps have to denounce willfully insulting speech, but at the same time, they need to hold foreign leaders accountable to not take fringe speech and represent it as mainstream speech for political gain.

    If Karzai and other Islamic “allies” continue to villainize the U.S. with such blatant straw men, our leadership needs to remind them of what will happen if we withdraw our protection.

    I personally like to provoke crazy people into crazy actions so there is a pretext to get rid of them. I wouldn’t mind being an enemy of all Islamic countries if their leadership is going to use any fringe excuse to incite attack on Americans.

    Let them rot in medieval psychosis and perish on the proverbial ash heap. Not all cultures are created equal.
    Islamic fundamentalist oppressive society is very unequal, dangerous, and should be ostracized from the civilized world.

  40. Rights are like honor. If you only observe them when it doesn’t matter, then you don’t have them at all.

  41. This is just more from the government/media propaganda machine. It is their intention to inflame religious extremism so as to justify their foreign policy. What other reason could their be for making such a huge deal of such a small representation of the population.
    Cheers

  42. Here is Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), when asked what was to be done about Terry Jones: “I wish we could find a way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war an overseas contingency operation.”

    FIFY Lindsey

    And as we all know, civil liberties take a back seat during contingency operation-time.

  43. That’s what makes this country great and separates us from wastelands like Afghanistan. Even idiots get to say what they want here. As abhorrent as Jones’ actions are, he has every right in this country to do what he did. Every two-bit fool can burn any book, flag, or shout anything they want no matter how offensive-welcome to democracy!

  44. The cause of violence is fear, the same cause that breeds superstition and organized superstition, the belief and faith in ideologies which bring social order through social behavior control.
    Political parties show the same hierarchal control as religions. Fanatics are religious exhibitionists acting out what is acceptable to those beliefs.
    Morality is a choice in behavior. Convictions offer no choice. Blame is not the issue. Understanding the nature of herd behavior as a cause of continuing competition and war among family, tribe, culture and nation leaves the constant state of war to the ideologues who prey on the fear of the stupid and ignorant masses who can not or will not think for themselves and refuse to take responsibility for their acts.

  45. As long as it’s just as okay to burn bibles, torahs, books of Morman, etc., Terry Jones can burn korans until he dies of smoke inhallation for all I care.

  46. Terry Jones can burn korans until he dies of smoke inhallation for all I care.

  47. 2011-4-11 17:45:43
    It sound great~,i think this article is pretty good~lol, but there is more awesome in here:http://www.topbagclub.com

    Yeah? replica handbag ~?

    welcome to the http://www.topbagclub.com

  48. 2011-4-11 17:45:43
    It sound great~,i think this article is pretty good~lol, but there is more awesome in here:http://www.topbagclub.com

    welcome to the http://www.topbagclub.com

  49. I don’t think Pastor Jones is running a cult

    Given all the other complaints an Afghan might have with the current state of affairs there why put this on Pastor Terry Jones.

  50. So, you poke a bunch of homicidal maniacs with a stick, putting innocent peoples’ lives in danger (not your own, or course). Are you legally responsible? No. Morally responsible? Hell yes. If I were one of the victims’ relatives, I’d go to court in the hopes that Mr. Jones spends the rest of his wretched life eating nothing but beenie weenies.

    1. So, you poke a bunch of homicidal maniacs with a stick, putting innocent peoples’ lives in danger (not your own, or course). Are you legally responsible? No. Morally responsible? Hell yes. If I were one of the victims’ relatives, I’d go to court in the hopes that Mr. Jones spends the rest of his wretched life eating nothing but beenie weenies.

      So then these people are morally responsible for any retaliatory gay bashings?

      A simple yes or no will suffice.

  51. During this news item, you hear T Jones being called every bad name from “idiot” to “psychopath.” He’s a scapegoat, an easy target. Even “smart” journalists can’t face the real problem. The problem is the Koran’s message. have you yourself examined it? I have. I read it through and studied the meaning. Do it yourself. Face it. The Koran, and therefore Islam, is not just a little bit violent and sick, but is very violent, and very sick. I sum up the Koran in these words: “Death to all who oppose Mohamed.” It is a horrible message. Face it. Confront it. You didn’t ask for this war, but you got it. It’s only just begun.

  52. This movie has some nike sb skunk dunks for sale of the same flaws I saw in another attempt at a faithful adaptation of a work of fantastic literature long thought unfilmable, Zach Snyder’s 2009 version of Watchmen…That is, it kobe 7 for sale struck me as a series of filmed recreations of scenes from the famous novel

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.