I said that if he had links to those statements, collecting them would be useful. He kindly replies:
Here’s what I’ve found so far:
Book burning is antithetical to American ideals. People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation—much like building a mosque at Ground Zero.
I would hope that Pastor Terry Jones and his supporters will consider the ramifications of their planned book-burning event. It will feed the fire of caustic rhetoric and appear as nothing more than mean-spirited religious intolerance. Don’t feed that fire. If your ultimate point is to prove that the Christian teachings of mercy, justice, freedom, and equality provide the foundation on which our country stands, then your tactic to prove this point is totally counter-productive.
Our nation was founded in part by those fleeing religious persecution. Freedom of religion is integral to our charters of liberty. We don’t need to agree with each other on theological matters, but tolerating each other without unnecessarily provoking strife is how we ensure a civil society. In this as in all things, we should remember the Golden Rule. Isn’t that what the Ground Zero mosque debate has been about? [LA replies: I have sometimes wondered how much of Palin’s Facebook essays were written by her, and how much by a ghost writer. In my opinion, this one is clearly the work of a ghost writer.]
My position on the Koran burning in Florida by a whacko church aligned with the vile anti-military, anti-semitic Westboro Church that defiles the funerals of our honored fallen soldiers:
This church’s plan to burn the Qur’an does a grave disservice to the cause of spreading awareness about Islamic teachings and the threat that Sharia poses to our way of life. [LA replies: Oh, cool, Pamela uses the uber politically correct spelling “Qur’an,” just like her anti-jihad partner Robert. How very sensitive of them!]
2. The burning of books is wrong in principle: the antidote to bad speech is not censorship or book-burning, but more speech. Open discussion. Give-and-take. And the truth will out. There is no justification for burning books. [LA replies: Excuse me, but “give and take” is the proper relationship among citizens who share the same basic conceptions and loyalties, and speak a common language. By advocating liberal dialog as the mode for relating to Muslims, Geller suggests that she sees them as “just like us.” She thinks that Muslims are capable of engaging in rational dialog with us, when all experience has shown that Muslims’ entire mentality is radically incompatible with ours. Don’t you love these “conservatives” from whose lips Eleanor Roosevelt-like clichés flow in such abundance?]
3. If Americans are free and not under Sharia, then the church can do this if it wants, and their freedom and rights should be protected. Islamic supremacists should not be allowed a victory for their violent intimidation—if these people want to burn a book, they’re free to do so.
4. If they were burning a Bible, no one would be threatening violence against them.
5. Petraeus is wrong to say this will threaten American troops. This is based on the assumption that they are fighting us because we are doing things they don’t like. Actually they are fighting us because of imperatives within the Islamic faith. They will never like us unless we convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule. [LA replies: but if that’s the case, why does Geller urge a relationship of rational, liberal dialog with Muslims, of “give and take”? Based on her statement that Muslims seek to rule us, they will only take, never give. Geller wants to be at war with Islam, and she wants mutually respectful dialog with Islam. She simply hasn’t through through her positions or attempted to reconcile the contradictory thoughts floating about in her head. ] If we stop doing things they dislike, where will we draw the line? How far will Sharia advance in the U.S., with Americans afraid to stop its advance for fear of offending Muslims and stirring them up to violence? The Muslim Students Association is already pushing for halal cafeterias, segregated dorms, segregated gym facilities on campus. This is incompatible with American freedom. We have to draw the line. [LA replies: Ok, so Geller sees Islam as our enemy, not as our co-participant in a Socratic dialogue. I agree. But if it is our enemy, why is it so terrible for Pastor Jones to burn a Koran to symbolize that fact?]
Provocateur pastor Terry Jones is getting his 15 minutes of fame with a “burn-the-Koran” day. The media and politicians are providing him with plenty of attention oxygen. Our America-bashing State Department has dubbed his First Amendment-protected exercise of fame-seeking “un-American.” And the usual grievance-mongers are doing their thing.
Gen. Petraeus says the provocation endangers the troops. But what’s in the Koran is far more of an inflammatory threat to American soldiers than any match with which to light it. What’s in the Koran has inspired decades of bloody warfare by Muslim operatives targeting our troops, civilians, and Western infidels around the world. [LA replies: Malkins criticizes Jones’s attackers, but she doesn’t support Jones either.]
Burning flags, books, bibles, korans and what all is at least one great height of ignorance. However it is not illegal, nor should it be. I could debate the whole flag thing considering its binding to civil law. But I’d rather not right now.
Bill O’Reilly, host of the O’Reilly Factor on the Fox News Channel, on September 9, 2010, called for the courts to act to shut down the suspended (as of this writing) Koran burning protest by the Gainesville, Florida based Dove World Outreach Center.
O’Reilly made his remarks in a segment with lawyers Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle.
O’Reiily said, “I believe, Guilfoyle, a case can be made here, it was the Supreme Court rul(ing) you can’t have a public display that intimidates if the intention of it is to harm. And certainly burning the holy book of more than three million Americans, Muslim Americans, is meant to harm them emotionally and intimidate.”
Then to Wiehl, O’Reilly said, “I think on legal grounds Wiehl, correct me if I’m wrong, there is a good case to say, ‘you cannot do this because the sole purpose of this is to intimidate people and inflict emotional damage.’”
Wiehl noted the Supreme Court has ruled burning the American flag is legal as a possible reason for noone going to court yet to stop the Koran burning.
O’Reilly replied, “That’s true, but I think it should be adjudicated, and they can slap an injunction on the guy and say he can’t do it.”
I’m on vacation and trying to unplug but the news can make that hard. I just read the story about the Florida church planning to burn copies of the Koran.
What is wrong with us? It’s just like the Ground Zero mosque plan. Does this church have the right? Yes. Should they? No. And not because of the potential backlash or violence. Simply because it is wrong. The more I reflect on what happened on 8/28 the more I realize the amazing power of GOOD.
We must be the better person. We must be bigger than our problems. Bigger than the times in which we live. Burning the Koran is like burning the flag or the Bible. You can do it, but whose heart will you change by doing it? You will only harden the hearts of those who could be moved. None of those who are thinking about killing us will be affected, but our good Muslim friends and neighbors will be saddened. It makes the battle that they face inside their own communities even harder.
Let us rise above the current levels and elevate ourselves and our country. The only thing this act would prove is that you CAN burn a Koran. I didn’t know America was in doubt on that fact. Let’s prove to each other that while there are many things we can do, there are maybe many more things that we choose not to do.
B. Oseen writes:
Dale F. writes:
Daniel S. writes: