BCT Editorial – 9/9/10

This page was last updated on September 10, 2010.

Prayer vigil; Editorial; Beaver County Times; September 9, 2010.

To be clear, Mr. Jones’ action is not something I would do. That’s not how I was raised.

We have two in-your-face actions, one by an imam in New York City and another by a pastor in Gainesville, FL. I can’t be the only person to see the double standard employed by outlets like the Times. Regarding Mr. Jones, the Times lectures us, “Yes, Jones has a First Amendment right to burn as many copies of the Quran as he wants. But rights come with responsibilities, and it is irresponsible to condemn an entire religion for the acts of a few.” To date (here, here, here), the Times has made no such “rights come with responsibilities” comment regarding Feisal Rauf building a shrine for the 9/11 murderers next to Ground Zero.

The editorial opines, “Nor is Jones’ plan some aberration. His actions are a direct and logical consequence of the anti-Islamic agenda featured on Fox News, talk radio and the Internet, one that deliberately conflates Islam with terrorism in pursuit of profit and political gain.” Hogwash! I suspect what the Times thinks it knows about “Fox News, talk radio and the Internet” it gets from its allies at Beaver County Reds and similar sources.

I’m tired of hearing “_____________ [fill in the blank] will inflame public opinion and incite violence by Muslims.” How many Korans did Mr. Jones burn before 9/11, or before the 1993 WTC bombing, or before the recent bombing attempt in Times Square, et cetera? For whatever reason, far too many Americans appear invested in the idea of blaming us for Islamist violence against us.

At the time I wrote this critique, Mr. Jones had decided not to burn any Korans. At the same time, though, Mr. Rauf made the following comment regarding the GZ mosque: “My major concern with moving it is that the headline in the Muslim world will be Islam is under attack in America, this will strengthen the radicals in the Muslim world, help their recruitment, this will put our people -- our soldiers, our troops, our embassies, our citizens -- under attack in the Muslim world and we have expanded and given and fueled terrorism.” Maybe it’s just me, but that comment sounds a lot like “If we (Mr. Rauf et al) can’t build the mosque where we want to, there will be Muslim violence against the U.S.” It sounds like a threat (intentional or not) to me, or at least yet another example of “_____________ [fill in the blank] will inflame public opinion and incite violence by Muslims.” Again maybe it’s just me, but it seems to me people who make predictions of violence by followers of “the religion of peace” don’t have a very high opinion of Islam and/or Muslims.

Finally, U.S. Muslims aren’t helping their cause. Time and time again, Muslims (U.S. citizens and not) attack this country in the name of Islam and kill our citizens. Despite this, there appears to be no widespread serious denunciation of the attacks by U.S. Muslims, or have I just missed the massive Muslim demonstrations against Islamist violence against the U.S.? At least some of this is out of fear. When a Muslim Student Association member was asked “Will you condemn Hamas … As a terrorist organization. Genocidal organization?”, she responded “Are you asking me to put myself on a cross?” Most of what we get is an accusation of Islamophobia by groups like CAIR. Despite all this, the Times doesn’t understand why many Americans believe we’re at war with Islam? Whether or not they turn out to be right is up for debate, but why they could feel as they do is pretty obvious.

On a side note, did you note the editorial twice improperly used “God” instead of “god?”