Daily Archives: September 10, 2010
Curious after the astonishingly fanatical – but in no way surprising – reaction of Muslim extremists, I did what I am sure many others have done: look on youtube and see what I can find there. It would seem that the idea has been very public for a while.
Here are just three among the many examples:
1) This is a young man playing apprentice Christian. Rather confused, poor chap, and with a strange mixture of political resentment and youthful aggression. He is very cost-conscious and goes for the economical solution: cheap paperback, in English. One assumes he did it whilst his parents were away. The fixed camera shows that he couldn’t even find a friend to handle the camera, but I do not think the offence to the Child Rapist will be considered less grave for that. And there you are, Koran unmistakably burning in technicolor…. Do yourself a favour, though, and switch off the audio…..
This has been put on youtube almost one year ago, when the world thought Terry Jones was the Monty Phyton actor. One wonders where the Muslim fanatics were?
2) This here is a rather more refined chap. He first covers his back making clear that the burning is covered by the First Amendment. In addition, his Koran shows a certain aesthetic discernment, but it is still paperback and it is still in English. This will, I am afraid, not qualify the exercise as sacrilegious by many a Muslim fanatic. They insist on Arabic, if you please.
This has been online, unless I am mistaken, since 2008. In the meantime, no world revolutions that I know of.
3) This here is the artist. One sees that he has put time, effort and money in the endeavour. He is also better educated, as his choice of material shows.
Impressive musical background (a real and well-chosen soundtrack, not Eminem). Nice book. Hardcover. Finely illustrated. In colour. In Arabic. This chap has all the bases covered.
This is from December 2007, no less. It wins the “burn a Koran day” hands down. To my knowledge, no mass killing because of this video.
There are many others, of course. On youtube. Publicly displayed. That have been there for years.
Now one wonders: if the burning of a Koran is such a desecration deserving of a harsh punishment, why have all these video never unchained a revolution? No broadband? How can it be that such an allegedly scandalous desecration causes so much scandal if an unknown pastor leading a micro-community announces it, but no reaction when dozens of people have been doing the same publicly, for the entire planet to see, for years?
Another question: if the avoiding of the burning is so important, wouldn’t it be better to play it down? Don’t they think that if these controversies go on, these videos will rapidly multiply and become an “artistic genre” of its own? It is not difficult to burn a Koran anonymously in the privacy of your fireplace or garden, and you can put it on the internet for the entire world to see without fearing anything. First amendment, and all that….
Could it be that dear fanatic Islamists don’t give a dime for the burning Korans, but don’t lose an occasion to score some cheap self-victimhood point?
And please let us stop with the idea of the world revolution: the Arab world has been humiliated repeatedly in the last years, two of their countries invaded, others forced to choose between acquiescence and war. Nothing happened.
Father Z has drawn attention on this Ann Coulter article.
Whilst I do not approve all that she says (and she has been rather a disappointment of late), I think this article is very useful in exposing a spread misconception about the world of Muslim fanatics: that if we appease them and/or do as they want, they’ll miraculously stop being fanatical.
The argument is utterly flawed. If one thinks that Obama Bin Laden didn’t need more than the (invited!) presence of American soldiers in Saudi Arabia to start his unholy and utterly failed “war”, you understand that Islamic rage is a molotov waiting to self-ignite, without any need for excuses. The last complaint is just the last fig leaf for what is their fundamental problem (fanaticism) and the fundamental problem of their religion (a false one; established by a child rapist; encouraging violence and fanaticism).
Let us see some of the most relevant assertions of Ann Coulter:
1) “Gen. Petraeus objected to the Quran-burning protest on the grounds that it could be used by radical jihadists to recruit Muslims to attack Americans.
This is what liberals say whenever we do anything displeasing to the enemy – invade Iraq, hold captured terrorists in Guantanamo, interrogate captured jihadists or publish Muhammad cartoons. Is there a website somewhere listing everything that encourages terrorist recruiting?
If the general’s main objective is to hamper jihadist recruiting, may I respectfully suggest unconditional surrender? Because on his theory, you know what would really kill the terrorists’ recruiting ability? If we adopted Sharia law!”
2) “There have been more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil by these allegedly calmed Muslims in Obama’s first 18 months in office than in the six years under Bush after he invaded Iraq.”
3) “Also, as I recall, there was no Guantanamo, no Afghanistan war and no Iraq war on Sept. 10, 2001. And yet, somehow, Osama bin Ladin had no trouble recruiting back then. Can we retire the “it will help them recruit” argument yet?”
These observations are extremely pertinent. It is rather disturbing, in fact, that nowadays even generals suggest in public that one should do not anything he is free to do in order not to anger fanatics living on the other side of the planet. One can be against or in favour of the burning (brilliantly, Ann Coulter says that she is in favour “mainly because burning Korans will contribute to global warming”) but a general should never make this type of suggestions, whatever the proposed behaviour. This is exactly the contrary of the freedom he is fighting for and Coulter’s observations are very pertinent.
From the Syllabus of Errors:
15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. — Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.
16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation. — Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.
17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. — Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc
You would think that a cardinal would have at least a vague knowledge of these simple things. You would think that a Cardinal wouldn’t stoop so low as to go to a gathering of Muslims and tell them that if they believe in Islam, than it is perfectly fine to stay that way. You would think that even the worst heretics and troublemakers would just shut up once they are retired.
Well, in the case of Cardinal McCarrick, you would be wrong. our home-made heretic is on record with saying these words:
“If a person sees the Quran as proof of God’s presence in the world, then I cannot say, ‘Don’t embrace the Quran.’ So that I think we are, we should always be willing to talk to people and we should always be willing to love them and we should always be willing to allow them that freedom of conscience which comes from God.”
What this old idiot (twice so, because a Cardinal) is saying is that faith in Islam is God-Given and he has nothing to say to that. Mind, he’d talk to the Muslim to see whether his faith in Islam really comes from God; but if he thinks this is the case, hey buddy, gimmefive….
Please also note that there is no reference here to the fact that conversion might be punished to death. What counts here is that Islam is the result of freedom of conscience and in his heretical mind comes from God.
People like him were, in better times, burnt at the stake. I understand that we now live in different times, where the respect for a single, utterly wasted human life dedicated to the perdition of souls comes before the interest of protecting Christianity. But still, there is no possible justification for a Cardinal, albeit retired, spreading such heresies and confusing Catholics.
The place where to send your email asking for the immediate excommunication of the above mentioned heretical idiot, Cardinal McCarrick, is.
Congregazione per il clero
Sua Em.za Rev. Card. Dario Castrillòn Hoyos, Prefetto
A link to the CNS article and your request to act will suffice. They’ll get enough mails anyway.
Well at least it is becoming all a big laugh. I wonder if Muslim fanatics do have sense of humour, though; they believe that a child rapist is their prophet and don’t even see the ridicule of that after all.
Terry Jones is then, we are informed, slowly waking up to his own stupidity. He was told the Imam would get on the lift and fetch him the Moon, but now he realises this might not happen after all. “But he said so”, swears he, his moustache vibrating in righteous fibrillation.
God now seems to have inspired him to simply “hold” the burning. Apparently. Probably until He lets him know what other signs He will have to send him for the burning (which the chap now truly, seriously, desperately wants to avoid) to be definitely cancelled.
One wonders what these signs will be. A call from his wife perhaps? His dog suddenly starting to bark? A cold day on the North Pole?
No doubt he will now go into a prayer retreat with the three members of his church still not denying that they ever knew him, waiting for instructions.
He had a huge opportunity and he has spectacularly blown it and made an ass of himself in the process.
Congratulations, pastor Terry Jones.