The Florida pastor is a nut case.

On the other hand, what does it say that Patraeus believes the consequences are so dire?

What does it say that drawing a picture of Mohammed results in widespread riots and very credible death threats against the artist, and boycotss of a whole country because it permits the drawing under freedom of the press or freedom of expression?

This country allows someone to put a cross in a jar of piss and call himself an artist who is engaging in free speech. It's a repulsive, offensive act. But it's protected under the law.

I don't see how the wacky pastor is any different.

Except that his act is like shouting fire in a crowded theater. That's only thing which give me a right to firehose his bonfire. But the reason it's like shouting fire is because the act will prompt others to kill our soldiers.

There is a photo-op here. These dopes applied for a burn permit and were denied. If the picture is the so-called pastor is photographed being taken away wearing silver bracelets, in custody the propaganda can be turned to advantage.

FWIW
jimBeyer

This "It will endanger our troops" line, even if provable (which it surely isn't), is a traditional opening line in a repressive movement (cf "Consecrating an openly gay bishop will damage our missionary activities in Africa."). There are good enough positive reasons in civility, not to mention Christianity, to object to the bonfire, without resorting to negative threats.

As a result of John Chilton's comment, I'm turned to an interesting (though ancillary) twist on this issue.

I can see how a cross in the jar of urine is offensive. I can see how the burning of holy books is offensive. I can see how they both may play a role in art, political speech, etc. However, I think the context matters rather a lot.

I personally take more offense at Koran burning than at something like placing a cross in a jar of urine. (In reality I take no offense at the latter.) I think this might be because of the context. Seeing as, in our American context at least, Christianity (if merely as a cultural item) is dominant, the first act can be seen as a reaction by the oppressed against an oppressor. (I'm choosing to leave aside the technicalities of whether or not Christianity is/was an oppressor to get to my larger question.) On the other side, the act of white, Christian Americans burning a Koran symbolizes the oppressor doing its oppressing.

Do any of you agree with this? Do you think that these contextual elements are (or should be) relevant to how we see and react to such potentially offensive actions?

-Grant Charles Chaput

The "Piss Christ" artist was (US) American, wasn't he?

The USA is a predominantly Christian (or "Christian", so-called!) country. Art offensive to Christians here, is an offense to the DOMINANT group. (Who should be "big enough to take it")

Burning the Qu'ran, by a (so-called!) Christian, is an act done by one of the dominant group, to a subordinant minority.

Not at all the same.

As a Christian, I'm obviously more concerned about an offensive act done by a member of my own group (because they tar me by their act), than offensive act done by a member of another group.

JC Fisher

* Although acts of violence against human beings are obviously offensive on every level, and should be so to everyone.

I just had a conversation with a parishioner who very passionately pointed out that burning the Koran goes against "Respecting the dignity of every human being." I couldn't have said it better.

A Massachusetts interfaith group held an anti Islamaphobia rally yesterday promoting an online petition. Some twenty Episcopal leaders were in the crowd.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/09/08/interfaith_group_rallies_on_beacon_hill_vs_anti_muslim_rhetoric/

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/tobigotrynosanction/

Steve Ayres

I hope he's taken out fire insurance on his church because, really, he may need it