Posted on 05/30/2005 4:47:09 PM PDT by forty_years
Concerns over the sensitivities of Muslims have once again taken members of the American media – even its government – over the top. Some in the media have decided that Islam should be treated differently from other world religions, and some in American government are spending too much time worrying about Muslim sensitivities, as opposed to concentrating on crushing the Islamist enemy.
An article published in the Washington Post on Tuesday, May 17 highlights examples of the mistakes being made by the media as well as in government.
Robin Wright, author of the Post’s article, “U.S. Long Had Memo on Handling of Koran,” refers to the Koran no less than three times as a “holy book.” The Washington Post is supposedly one of the pillars of American journalism.
Ask any of its writers, and I am sure they would tell you that the Post is objective and fair, and is steeped in the rules and science of journalism. But if this were so, would its writers confer special properties on the religion of Islam? Calling the Koran a “holy book” inside the pages of the Post is not responsible journalism. This term is de facto recognition that Islam and the Koran are intrinsically sacred or inspired by the divine. This is quite a leap of faith for an “objective” newspaper.
I am not questioning whether people of faith hold the Koran as "holy," but has the Washington Post decided that all its readers should consider it so? Is this official policy at the newspaper? What happened to objectivity? A full text search of the Post's archives for the terms "Bible" AND "holy book" returns, "Your Search for bible "holy book" returned 0 results."
The Associated Press’ “Stylebook and Libel Manual” and The University of Chicago’s “Manual of Style,” two books which professional journalists are taught to adhere to when writing, make no mention of a requirement to refer to the Koran as a “holy book.” There is no mention of a requirement that writers assume that Islam was inspired by the divine. The two stylebooks certainly do not require that Hinduism, Christianity, or Judaism be imbued with spiritual properties, nor is there any mention of calling the Bhagavad Gita, the Bible, or the Torah “holy books.”
In a profession in which concerns over diversity and political correctness are out of control, it seems that some journalists have decided that one religion is more important than others. What about concern for the sensitivities of Jews and Christians? Would these same “concerned” journalists encode value judgments regarding a subject’s wealth or physical attributes? I doubt it.
Ms. Wright’s editorializing about which religion is truly “holy” tells us about her fears and those of her politically correct, compatriot journalists. Explicitly, these news writers would tell you that their motivations lie in cultural sensitivity. Implicitly, the truth of the matter is that these people are afraid, very afraid, of being blown up by crazed Muslim suicide bombers, and they hope to maintain their cushy lifestyles in the land of the free, home of the brave by placating the enemy.
But the Washington Post article goes farther than just revealing the bias of its author. It also shows to what lengths our government and military have been willing to go to placate the angry, Muslim hoards:
More than two years ago, the Pentagon issued detailed rules for handling the Koran at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, requiring U.S. personnel to ensure that the holy book is not placed in "offensive areas such as the floor, near the toilet or sink, near the feet, or dirty/wet areas."
The three-page memorandum, dated Jan. 19, 2003, says that only Muslim chaplains and Muslim interpreters can handle the holy book, and only after putting on clean gloves in full view of detainees.
The detailed rules require U.S. Muslim personnel to use both hands when touching the Koran to signal "respect and reverence," and specify that the right hand be the primary one used to manipulate any part of the book "due to cultural associations with the left hand." The Koran should be treated like a "fragile piece of delicate art," it says.
In the Muslim and Arab world; where violence has become so endemic; where strength is measured by the size of a gun and the number of civilians one is willing to slaughter; these moves on the part of the U.S. military will be surely seen by Arabs/Muslims as weakness -- e.g., “Look at how we’ve got the Americans jumping through hoops.”
Weakness is not a luxury we can afford. Strength is the image we must cultivate and prove. Of course we should never intentionally defile anyone’s religious text – this is just common sense and common decency. But putting on gloves to handle a book?
Need it be said that many in our media have been advertising the weakness of their “liberal” belief system? A bevy on opinion polls show it obvious that the American media is disconnected from the American public – just look at the CBS’ Dan Rather and his “memo-gate” fiasco or Newsweek’s false and retracted story about flushing a Koran down the toilet.
Time for a reality check: Placating a vicious enemy is always counter-productive. The war against Islamist terrorists will not be won based on our handling of books, but on searching out and killing all the members of the terrorist organizations, as well as their supporters – just as we defeated the Germans and Japanese in WWII.
http://netwmd.com/articles/article1022.html
My faith in what? Government?
Go ahead... play games.
We're the private sector here. We're just having fun. I don't want want my government flushing the Koran down public toilets. And those toilets would require fixing at the taxpayers expense. But that hasn't been proven at all. What has been proven is the ardent anti-American bias and hypersensivity to Muslim beliefs expressed by memebers of the MSM that never seems to carry over to the sensitivities that guide the majority of America's citizens. And as for all of those white-glove rules they're applying to "special handling" of this book, take em away if they interfere with assuring security at the detention centers. They're detained for a reason: they were captured on a battlefield attempting to kill us for attempting to rein them in after 9-11.
Which is fine - your an atheist - also a protected religious belief under the constitution. Do you want theists acting on behalf of the government ripping books that don't sufficiently recognize the existence of a theistic god out of the library. There are a lot of Christians who think atheism is evil and doesn't deserve constitutional protection.
The same constitution that protects your religious ideas (or anti-religious ideas) has to protect everyone's. Otherwise,
The 1st Amendment embodies the idea that everyone can accept whatever religious belief they want, no matter how stupid they are. If you don't like it, amend the Constitution.
That doesn't shield religious ideas from criiticism. Feel free to hate Islam - or whatever religion you choose to despise. But ... if you're an agent of the government, follow the constituition that you've sworn to defend.
You know, other than the misuse of the word "your", yet again by another FReeper... (oh... forget it.)
*Yawn*
You're also incorrect in another aspect.. I am a Christian.
Now then, were I not a Christian, but rather a member of some new "religion" called "Kill bin2baghdad", would that be protected under the Constitution in your eyes?
The proper way to handle the koran is to soak it in a fine mix of horse $shit, pig guts, piss and a large amount of kerosene. Place stinkin mass in a sack, light and deliver to your favorite muslim gathering.
BTW, unlike Lea[frog I am an atheist, but have no problem personally deciding which religious belief systems are superior to others. The ROP is an enemy of civilization - they'd kill me and my family soon as look at us. Christians are cool.
The pages would make decent bird cage liners.
One could also use several layers in a cat litter box.
But my favorite idea is to have a perforated metal grid at the bottom of a holding cell for certain kinds of prisoners, with a lower level lined with pages from the book. Give the prisoner plenty to eat and drink, then put him in the cell.
Notice that one is not doing anything to the book; rather, it is the prisoner who will do things.
Special holding cell: $5,000.00
Copy of koran (used): $5.00
Lots of beans: $5.00
Expression on prisoner's face: priceless!
Islam is hardly a new religion. It's been around for well over a millenium. Do I believe in it or find any value in its theological teachings? No. Do I believe Muslims have the right to practice their faith? Yes. Do I believe they have the right to break the law because of their faith? No. As I understand it, that's the position of our Constitution.
I plead guilty to faulty grammar with quick typing.
... and you would be on the Winning side!
'Islam is hardly a new religion.'
islam is not a religion. islam is a death cult.
If we go back to Cold War days, what would your position have been regarding the legality of the Communist Party USA. The party was illegal in the US in some sense was it not? I believe that Islam is much like the Communist Party. American Islamic leaders have openly declared that IF they can become a majority in this country they intend to replace the US Constitution with Sharia. The Communist Party would have also done away with the Constitution if they had been able to obtain majority status. I can't think of a single other world religion in the US that has as its objective the supplanting of the Constitution. Everywhere in the world where Islam is in contact with another of the major world religions we see conflict and bloodshed.
One of the risks of democracy is that people will use democratic means to take power and then put an end to democracy - that's true whether the anti-democratic philosophy is religious, political or economic. A democratic nation must trust that the power of democratic ideas can preserve freedom.
What is the alternative? Banning the practice of Islam and prohibiting the posession of Islamic articles in the United States? Redefining the GWOT as the Global War on Islam? If so, then what is the end state of our campaign? What does success look like?
Seriously, what end state can we realistically achieve with the instruments of national power available to us if we make Islam the enemy? We also have to consider the 2d and 3d order effects of our actions.
There are an aweful lot of Muslims in the world. We have to deal with them somehow. Do we 1) destroy them, 2) dominate them on their home turf, 3) build a wall between us and them; 4) influence their culture in ways that are advantageous to everyone; 5) submit.
Those seem to be the only options to me. Right now, our primary strategic goal is #4 (influence), but we're also doing a little of #1 (destroy) where needed and #3 (defend) as well. But these are secondary strategies. I would argue that we are not doing #5 (submit) at all, but that we are doing "respect" as a part of our overall #4 (influence) strategy.
Militant Hindus burn the Koran in India.
Man...I think I'll boycott cow eating for a day in honor of these people. Nice picture.....it brings me pleasure.
Glad to see I made the cut!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.