A Burning Hypocrisy

9/10/10 - THIS POST HAS BEEN UPDATED

Burning the Koran to mark the 9th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks is a dumb idea that will hopefully yield to public pressure and reason will prevail. It will likely be used as a propaganda tool to embolden our enemies and is an unnecessary and provocative gesture.

However, there is a lot of hypocrisy from liberals on this issue considering their faux outrage over opposition to the NYC mosque. For some reason, nobody had the right to be offended over the location of the mosque and those who were obviously did not believe in the First Amendment and were bigots.  But when it comes to the preacher burning the Koran, if you aren't offended then you must be a bigot.

Greensboro Rabbi Fred Guttman called into the Brad and Britt Show this morning and analogized that the Koran burning preacher might be a fair target to be killed shot for the greater good. He also suggested that the preacher be sued to prevent the Koran burning- something that would violate the First Amendment.  Host Brad Krantz who has been among the liberal crowd attacking opponents of the mosque at Ground Zero (often citing the First Amendment) let Guttman's comments pass without challenge.

I am quite confident that if this was a Bible burning and Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh said what Guttman did, Krantz and other liberals would not only aggressively challenge them directly while either was on the phone, but would also be screaming that they were advocating violence and trampling the First Amendment.  Then would come the calls to condemn the comments and anyone on the Right who didn't come forward would be considered endorsing the comments.

In fact, Krantz made essentially this argument this morning- that Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, (a.k.a. the three headed Right wing monster that drives liberals to insanity) probably inspired the book burning and should come against it or they must be endorsing it.

Guttman also politicized the discussion on his own blog where he called on Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck to condemn the planned Koran burning- even though neither has anything to do with it.  The implication was clear: Somehow, this is all Palin and Beck's fault. I must have missed the cries of outrage about mixing religion with politics.

On the same blog, Guttman again invoked the Jewish value of Pikuach Nefesh which means "the greater good" "to save a life." (thanks to Sue for the correction).  This was the same value Guttman raised on the Brad and Britt Show when he argued that sometimes it is necessary to take a life to preserve more lives- the "greater good".  He used a war time analogy on the Brad & Britt Show about how shooting someone could be justified to save more lives for the "greater good".  He then stated something to the effect of "I'm not saying this pastor should be shot...maybe he should be".

I give him the benefit of the doubt that he was not seriously advocating that the pastor be shot and that his "maybe he should be" comment was a form of hyperbole, but he did invoke Pikuach Nefesh, he did create an analogy involving shooting someone in a war setting (we are at war) to illustrate it, and he did it in reference to the Koran burning preacher after stating that the preacher was going to cause more Americans to die. Perhaps Brad & Britt can provide the audio.

The fact that Guttman was given a complete pass is symbolic of the hypocrisy of the Left on this issue. 

Comments

[jaycee]

The same Dems/libs will jump up and down and defend someone who burns the American flag as an expression of free speech.
They castigate a government entity which chooses to open their meetings with a prayer, but will defend to the death Muslim efforts to insinuate their religion into the mainstream.

City Council Meetings to Begin with Muslim Prayers
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local-beat/Council-Meetings-to-Begin-with-Muslim-Prayers-102387499.html

[bubba]

It's simple, really.

Muslims are a favored affinity or victim group to be used as appropriate to fulfilling The Agenda (tm).

Christians belong to neither of those two categories of groups, and are an antithetical danger to Dem/Lefty/"Progressive" cause.

[Bubba]

Correction to my previous post: Insert "conservative" before Christians.

Not-so conservative (some of whom are pseudo) Christians are part of the hypocrisy being discussed here.

[cheripickr]

"Greensboro Rabbi Fred Guttman called into the Brad and Britt Show this morning and analogized that the Koran burning preacher is a fair target to be killed for the greater good."

Are you serious?

[cheripickr]

He has a constitutional right to burn it, doesn't he? What's all this irrelevant bleeding heart argument about "feelings"?

[Spag]

Guttman invoked the Jewish doctrine of Pikuach Nefesh which means that preservation of human life is a value of the highest order. He then explained how the doctrine applies in a war setting. He then said that the preachers actions in burning books would result in the deaths of more Americans by inflamed Muslims- a point I agree with. Guttman then said that in keeping with the doctrine, maybe the preacher should be shot. Then he said something to the effect of "I'm not saying he should be shot...maybe he should be".

I am not convinced that Guttman was serious, however my point is that nobody on the Right would get any benefit of the doubt even if they were clearly joking, and the Left wing noise machine would be in full throttle using such an analogy as proof that the Right was advocating violence.

Guttman then said that the threat of potential harm was so great that perhaps the preacher could be sued to prevent him from burning the Koran- a clear violation of the First Amendment that was also greeted with no apprehension. Utter hypocrisy considering all of the First Amendment hype over the mosque by liberals.

On his blog, Guttman called on Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck to condemn the Koran burner- as if it is somehow their fault or responsibility.

It appears to me that Rabbi Guttman is much more of a political actor who is committing the terrible sin (but ONLY when committed by Christians) of mixing religion with politics, and he gets away with it because he is a liberal.

[jaycee]

Get serious. Jihadists can hardly hate us any more than they do now.
It's not about what we do, or how we dress, or whether we "love" them or not.
They have a religious mission to convert or kill all non-Muslim infidels. And they will continue to do so unless stopped.

[Spag]

I agree that is true of Jihadists. I still don't believe that the symbolic gesture of burning the Koran is productive and I do think it will be used to convert more Muslims to becoming Jihadists.

[jaycee]

I don't think building a mosque at Ground Zero is productive either.
Nor would I think building a KKK headquarters next to the NAACP headquarters was productive.
But I'll defend the rights of each of these entities to express themselves in accordance with the freedoms we have, regardless of whether or not I agree.
We seem to bend over backwards to defend jihadists while they cut off our heads with glee when given the opportunity. I have no respect nor sympathy for the jihadists, nor will I go out of my way in my own country to avoid offending them.
Most Muslims will not be affected one way or the other by what a single, small group of people here in the US are doing. In places where the jihad is active they are probably not even aware of it. And in those places there is little truth told anyway; Americans are portrayed as ogres and monsters and told myth after myth about how we are at war with Islam, etc.

[Sue]

As I said, this is something that is so antithetical to Reb Fred's philosophy and if it weren't sarcasm, it could be a gross misinterpretation. But given that anything can happen, I'd like to hear the exchange. Is there a link?

[Spag]

I wish there was, Sue. Brad and Britt don't have their entire shows available online.

Look, I don't think Guttman was seriously advocating that the pastor be shot, be he did use a very reckless analogy- one that if used by a conservative, especially a Beck or a Palin or Limbaugh (the same people Guttman called on for some reason to condemn the Koran burning) would be hyped and highlighted as yet more evidence of bigotry and hatred and inciting violence.

This is less about Guttman than it is the double standards. Everyone says he is a great guy, and I have no reason to doubt that. But the mix of religion and politics is something liberals claim to disdain, yet Rabbi Guttman gets a pass in more ways than one.

[jaycee]

It’s truly amazing how the jihadists (not every Muslim, so don't lay that on me) have us Westerners shaking with fear so hard you can almost hear the teeth chattering.
Yeah, burn and murder “infidels” over a few cartoons, even though it's perfectly fine for them to print the most vile anti-Semitic cartoons imaginable almost daily throughout the Arab Muslim world.
A guy writes a book which some Muslims may find offensive and he must fear for his life......the rest of his life.
Someone makes a film which may be offensive to some Muslims and he's murdered in broad daylight.
They burn bibles and Torah's. Churches and synagogues are defaced and sometimes destroyed by Islamists with impunity and we hear no outcry.
Young women are murdered by their fathers/brothers in America for the sin of thinking/dressing too "Western" and the silence from the press (and “moderate” Muslims) is deafening.
But some loon with no following (other than the media) says he'll burn a few Qurans, and the West trembles at the possibility that the jihadists will hate us even more while they give themselves the right to murder and behead all with whom they disagree.
Yeah this guy is a buffoon, but there's something much more insidious going on to which some people insist on remaining blind.

[Brandon Burgess]

Cheri: "He has a constitutional right to burn it, doesn't he? What's all this irrelevant bleeding heart argument about "feelings"?

--That's what I'm talking about.

Jaycee, you are right. It is amazing that so many Americans fear radical islam when we've been dealing with, in America, the terrorist factions of christianity for hundreds of years and life has been relatively normal for most of us.

[Spag]

I agree with Jaycee on a lot of what he is saying. We cannot allow our First Amendment to become hostage to the acts of radicals. While I think the Koran burning is foolish and harmful because of those radicals, another part of me strongly believes that we shouldn't allow such threats from radicals to factor into our considerations. We live in a country where a newspaper will not publish a cartoon that depicts Mohammed for fear that it will result in death threats. Are we going to continue to allow the fear of consequences from Islamic extremists control what we do? Isn't that the real victory for terrorism?

[Brandon Burgess]

"Isn't that the real victory for terrorism?"

--I believe so.

People who don't give a damn shouldn't be afraid to make cartoons, build mosques or burn bibles, korans and flags.

[Brandon Burgess]

"The fact that Guttman was given a complete pass is symbolic of the hypocrisy of the Left on this issue."

--Not sure if you'd call me left or not but this nut doesn't get a pass from me.

I don't care if people are just kidding around. You don't kid about assassination, revolution and holy war. That's the problem with America (and I think the anonymity that discourse on the internet affords is a contributor to this); people don't think before they speak. People don't take their own words seriously.

I wonder if Gore considered the impact that the tone of his film would have on environmental nuts. Obviously, what I am talking about is even more important when it comes to religious folks talking out of their asses.

[jaycee]

"Are we going to continue to allow the fear of consequences from Islamic extremists control what we do? Isn't that the real victory for terrorism?"
Yes, it is. And for the sake of sensationalism the mainstream media willingly assists our enemies in doing so. It's the lead story right now on News2 at Noon, and the second story on Fox8.

[Spag]

I don't think Guttman is a nut, but the double standard is obvious. At the very least, if the tables were turned, those on the Left would be calling his use of the war analogy "reckless".

[jaycee]

Imagine if Rev. Jones had instead planned to burn an American flag to express his hatred of America. Think of the public support he'd be getting from Obama and his ilk.

All of this dancing around the core problem is only prolonging the inevitable. We have two choices: Surrender, or fight against those who would enslave free people through Islamic law. Altering our way of life or giving up our freedom or rights because of threats from jihadists is only surrendering by degrees and encourages them to continue. It tells them they're winning.
Trying to appease terrorists is like trying to convince a homicidal maniac that you're really a good person so he'll let you live. He doesn't care; it doesn't factor into why he does what he does.
You cannot appease someone who only wants to kill you and destroy your way of life.
You cannot placate a group of people who are on a mission from their god to eliminate you.
You cannot negotiate with people who want nothing from you but your acquiescence to their way of life, or, if that fails, your life.

[Sue]

Spag, without hearing the conversation, I can't give an opinion - it would be irresponsible. But I can say a few things other than what I wrote above, that this could have been sarcasm or a wild analogy or a misinterpretation. But several other things:

First: If a US general says that something like a book burning could harm US troops, I'd call on every leading politician, red or blue, to stop that from happening. I'd give credit to Reb Fred for calling on the biggest Republican guns, especially those who claim that supporting the troops is their biggest calling. It's big-tent. It's inclusive. It's asking Sara Palin and Glen Beck to put their money where their headlines are and do the right thing.

Second: The Quran burning has been canceled. I truly believe this "pastor" got what he wanted: publicity.

Third: I applaud every pol, left or right, who said this was a bad idea. Not an illegal idea, but a bad idea and decidedly un-American. Burning one religion's holy book when you know it's going to incite something awful, is simply a bad idea.

Fourth: I think Reb Fred showed some courage talking about this in public. I haven't heard too many local clergy willing to tackle this out loud. It's not Jewish, it's not Christian to incite violence. Period. Is it legal? Maybe. But is it a good idea?

Fifth: this is NOT analogous to the building proposed several blocks from the site of the Trades. That situation is complex and highly charged. It needs a lot of understanding and I've been disappointed with a lot of the rhetoric that's being espoused by un-exceptional Americans. I do agree they have the right to say stupid things. But I can disagree with them and be disappointed in national (blue and red) leaders who can't get past rightful anger to uphold the Constitution and freedom of religion (see "Nazis in Skokie")

Sixth: the "pastor" who called for the book burning was fired by another church for similar outrageous and over-the-top actions. Let's not forget that; sometimes it takes only one crazy person to wreak unimaginable havoc on the world.

So... on the first day of this new year (for me), I am glad that Reb Fred had the courage to address the issue and without hearing the conversation, I can't say that he "got a pass" because I don't know what he said. But I will try to talk to him this week, although this is a particularly busy season for rabbis.

L'shana Tovah, y'all. Gmar Tov.