The latest edition of “Red Eye” brought together host Greg Gutfeld with Imogen Lloyd Webber, Stephen Kruiser and Joe DeRosa. As always, TV’s Andy Levy and faithful sidekick, Bill Schulz, rounded out the show.
The hot topic of the evening was the plan by a small Florida church to burn copies of the holy book of Islam on September, 11, to mark the ninth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on US territory.
As Gutfeld pointed out, the current American dialectic on this issue seems to be “sure, legally they can burn the Qur’an, but that doesn’t mean it’s right.” Gutfeld has heard this argument before, somewhere.
…that mostly everyone agrees the pastor can burn the book, but he’s a big weenie if he does it. This was exactly my argument over the construction of the [Ground Zero] mosque. So in a weird way, this guy may have clued in others who missed that subtle point: The mosque can be built, but a compromise (or a conversation about it) might have been nice. Don’t get me wrong: the Koran burning is pure provocation, and I’m not sure that’s entirely the case with the mosque. But both issues deal with poor judgment. The key distinction: the pastor is a total barfpuck.
The difference is, the people making this argument against the Ground Zero Mosque are “intolerant, Islam-fearing bigots,” whereas the people making the argument against burning the Qur’an are high-minded intellectuals.
A bigger difference? Building the mosque doesn’t entail the threat of a violent Muslim backlash.
See, Terry Jones is a total creep. Small “L” Libertarian blogger, Beregond, ties the man and his church to Westboro Baptist, of Fred Phelps fame. But reactionary Muslims are also creeps, and those threatening violence in the streets of Kabul, or around the world, based on the actions of a very few are exactly the type of radically violent extremists the Left constantly claims it hates, but secretly admires.
There’s no doubt burning someone’s religious doctrines will be seen as offensive by people of that faith, but how much violent Muslim backlash do we need to put up with before we put our foots down?
“South Park” depicts Mohammed: threats of violent Muslim backlash. Everybody Draw Mohammed Day: threats of violent Muslim backlash. Cartoons of Mohammed in European newspapers: actually violent Muslim backlash. Sell liquor in Russia: violent Muslim backlash.
See a pattern?
We’re constantly being told we shouldn’t fear Islam, but always under the threat of terror and death. In essence, it’s bigotry to consider Muslims violent, and if you say they are, they might get offended and kill you.
Is it any wonder Feisal Rauf now fears moving the Ground Zero Mosque would provoke violence by Muslim extremists and threaten national security? For someone so concerned about improving the image of his faith, he sure seems to be counting on a large group of Muslims acting exactly like the “bigots” claim they will.
I think I have a solution. To the book burning issue, at least.
Instead of burning the Qur’an, which is a definite provocation, let’s burn effigies of bin Laden, Ahmadinejad and ad-Gaddafi. Since these men are terrorists, I’m sure moderate Muslims will flood the streets of Gainesville in support. We all hate terror, after all.
Those Muslims who threaten a violent backlash against anyone who hates terrorists prove only that they sympathize with extremist jihadist actions and are therefore hardly to be considered moderate.
Burning the Qur’an is a stupid move, but so is promoting worldwide terrorism by actively supporting the idea we should change our behavior because it might upset some Muslims and, therefore, death.
Islam can’t both be a religion of peace and the deadly, gloved hand reaching out to throttle us in our sleep. While I don’t support Terry Jones, or his planned Qur’an burning, maybe it is time the West helped Islam decide which it really is.