Liberty on Tap since 1984

Why Did the FBI Visit The Koran-Burning Pastor?

I've avoided blogging about Terry Jones — the Florida pastor with fewer congregants than Jay-Z's entourage — because I didn't want to contribute to the MSM sin of making this nutjob an international "sensation" for his plan to burn Korans on September 11. But there is an angle to this story that is worthy of comment.

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line draws my attention to something Bill Otis noted at his Crime and Consequences blog. This was the lead of a recent Associated Press story filed about the time Jones started thinking better of his stunt and called it off:

GAINESVILLE, Fla. -- FBI agents visited Thursday with a minister of a small Florida church that plans to burn the Quran on Sept. 11, as public safety became a paramount concern and President Barack Obama added his voice to the chorus of opposition.

Why the hell is the FBI visiting Jones on this matter? What "public safety" concern is addressed by Jones' stunt? Now, if it's to offer the federal government's protection if radical Muslims aim to attack him or his 50 congregants for not untypical violent threats and retaliation, that's one thing. But it sure is curious that shortly after this visit from the FBI, Jones decided to call off his Koran book-burning stunt.

Say what you want about Jones' idea to set Koran's aflame because — as he claims — God told him that was a good idea. (And now, Jones claims, God has told him to reconsider). I think burning a pile of Korans on 9/11 is stupid — just as stupid as burning an American flag. Both are a disrespectful and childish act of free speech meant to provoke.

But, in America, it is still our right to burn any private property we wish as a form of free speech. So I'm suspicious of the visit by the FBI. I think the feds told Jones that he could get in trouble if he carried out his stunt — perhaps charged with a "hate crime." Paul at Power Line is also suspicious:

This raises the suspicion that the FBI visit was an attempt to intimidate Rev. Jones. A vist for this purpose would be an entirely improper infringement on his (and by extension our) civil liberties.

Complicating this issue — or, more accurately, clarifying it — is the fact that President Obama, and the rest of the left and the MSM, has manned the parapets to defend the proposed construction of an immense mosque at Ground Zero. The mosque, they say, is a celebration of our First Amendment rights of freedom of religion and expression. But Jones' expression of his First Amendment rights of freedom of religion and expression is something the president condemned — and the FBI decided was worth a visit. For some reason.

There is something wrong with this dynamic. Something a bit un-American. Something rightly labeled dhimmitude.

Tags: burning, constitution, dhimmitude, fbi, first-amendment, freedom-of-speech, islam, koran, michele-malkin, obama, More…quran, religion, terry-jones

Comment

You need to be a member of Freedom Pub to add comments!

Join Freedom Pub

Comment by Ronald A. Lau on September 11, 2010 at 10:29am: Well at least Google isn't a [cat]:

http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS242&q=mu...

Comment by Ronald A. Lau on September 11, 2010 at 10:28am: "Sam Harris, in The End or Reason, hypothesizes that this difference between the religions is due in part to their respective ages. Islam is much younger, and has not matured through the violent convert-non-believers phase that Christianity experienced several hundred years ago."

Well Sam Harris is wrong.

Christianity was never spread by the sword. That is a myth. The Whenever Christianity went to war (full war, not political 'war'), it was in response to muslim aggression. islam was and is spread by the sword. Spain was re-conquered AFTER followers of islam from Africa waged war to conquer it. The crusades were in response to muslim aggression in the holy land.

One need only look to nations that have overwhelming majorities of Christians and compare them to nations that have overwhelming majorities of muslims.

Comment by Ronald A. Lau on September 11, 2010 at 10:21am: Uh-oh, koran in toilet on fire! (photoshopped)

Comment by Ronald A. Lau on September 11, 2010 at 10:17am

Comment by Ronald A. Lau on September 11, 2010 at 10:16am

Comment by Marcotte Anderson on September 11, 2010 at 10:15am: What has our conversation come to when Joel says this:

"But: Terry Jones absolutely does have the right to burn any book he wants. You're right."

And Jim responds:

"he still has the right to do it. I hope you agree, Joel."

How much clearer could Joel have been?

I too think Jones has the right to burn the Koran if he wants to. Like Joel and Jim, I think it's a stupid, disrespectful thing to do, but he absolutely has the right to do it. Like Jim, I think that, in general, there are more boisterous and violent reactions to incidents of Islam being disrespected than of Christianity being disrespected. Sam Harris, in The End or Reason, hypothesizes that this difference between the religions is due in part to their respective ages. Islam is much younger, and has not matured through the violent convert-non-believers phase that Christianity experienced several hundred years ago. I'm not sure that I totally buy his argument, though I think the idea has some merit.

I also think it's inappropriate for the government to directly contact Jones to persuade him to stop his protest, unless they have some specific information about an attack on him or others that could be directly linked to his burning the Korans. I thought I read one story earlier this week that the FBI had talked to him about the numerous death threats that he received, and that of course is to be expected and welcomed. But when the government starts "asking" citizens to temper their speech because of effects it might have in wider society, we start walking down a very slippery slope that I'm not very comfortable with.

Comment by Ronald A. Lau on September 11, 2010 at 9:42am: muslims are not the problem, islam is.

Comment by Jim Lakely on September 10, 2010 at 11:47pm: I don't use the term "dhimmitude" lightly. And it's a term I apply to a society, more than individuals. Of course Petreaus is going to advocate for the protection of his troops. That's his duty, and is not remotely the point. And as you articulate, it is the "surrendering to the superior status of Muslims" which is what is at issue here. That's what dhimmitude is. (For more examples, see this column about the Religion of Perpetual Outrage.)

The fact that an alarmingly large number of Muslims would react to the burning of the Koran in a violent way is the problem. Christians would not kill people in reaction to the burning of Bibles. Nor would Jews riot over the burning of the Torah. The Islamofacists are urging the people of the Untied States — and perhaps, even through official channels — to diminish our constitutional rights of free speech by threats of violence. I resist.

While I don't think what Jones planned to do is in any way admirable (and is morally indefensible) he still has the right to do it. I hope you agree, Joel. And if that right means anything, it stands in this case. If we really believe in protecting "speech we don't agree with" — as the left/liberal establishment spouts routinely when speech that would offend American "norms" are violated — that principle is in play here.

I really wish we weren't having this discussion. Terry Jones is a kook. But he happens to be standing on a principle all lovers of freedom and the U.S. Constitution should defend.

Comment by Joel Mathis on September 10, 2010 at 11:03pm: I was with you all the way to "dhimmitude" Jim. Unless, of course, you want to suggest that Gen. Petraeus is a dhimmi. I don't really think surrendering to the superior status of Muslims is what's at play here ... and I think, frankly, it's a dangerous charge to level based on speculation.

But: Terry Jones absolutely does have the right to burn any book he wants. You're right. The government shouldn't be trying to intimidate him, if that indeed is what happened. And the government should protect him and his rights as much as it would protect anybody else.

Comment by Jim Lakely on September 10, 2010 at 10:48pm: You really live on the edge, Ron. Just talking about the possibility of perhaps — no guarantees ... I might change my mind — burning a Koran is enough to get the Islamofascists' skivvies in a bunch.

I'm proud to have worked for a newspaper (the Press-Enterprise of Riverside, California) which took a stand on the Muhammad cartoon issue. You'd have to ask our friend Ben Boychuk if we actually published the frightful image. In the four years since, I don't precisely recall.

Why Did the FBI Visit The Koran-Burning Pastor?

You need to be a member of Freedom Pub to add comments!

Other Heartland SItes