To Burn, or Not to Burn, a Koran? A tiny bunch of Radical-Rightwing 'Christian' loons plan to burn a Koran very publicly in Florida this Saturday, the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The head nutjob claims that he knows that Jesus would approve, even tho Jesus is esteemed in Islam, and Moslems are taught that in end times Jesus will return to Earth to rule with the Mahdi.
+
The U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, is publicly urging them not to do this, because it could 'inflame' opinion among Afghans and cause real problems, possibly even deaths of American soldiers in that backward country. The organizer of the Koran-burning is making noises about thinking about not doing it, but indicates that he will probably do it anyway, and says that if some American DIES in Afghanistan because of his actions, he is not in any way responsible.
+
As a practical matter, are Americans in Afghanistan or elsewhere doing anything to point out that the Koran-burning is a project of a tiny sect of around 50 extremists? — and thus not representative of American public opinion generally?
+
There is a concept in common wisdom, and in law, called the "fighting words doctrine". This holds that 'incendiary' words that are likely to provoke an immediate, violent reaction, are not constitutionally protected speech.
+
Burning a book is not words, of course, and as such is not constitutionally protected to begin with. There is no constitutional protection of "expression" other than of speech, the press, and the right of peaceable assembly and petition for redress of grievances. Burning a Koran, Bible, Torah, or flag is not, narrowly speaking, protected by the First Amendment, any more than would be public nudity, public sex, or a host of other nonverbal types of "expression".
+
To the extent that burning a Koran is regarded as the equivalent of speech, however, the "fighting words doctrine" comes into play. If no one in the immediate vicinity of the burning is 'incensed' enuf by it to attack the organizers physically — and they are all armed — does the "fighting words doctrine" apply? Perhaps not, narrowly.
+
But if that action does indeed incense Moslems in Afghanistan and elsewhere into violence against U.S. military personnel, embassies, corporations, individuals, and other U.S. "interests" abroad, a case can be made that burning a Koran is barred by the "fighting words doctrine".
+
Ingrained Anti-Afghan Insensitivity. It is, alas, absurd to talk about harming the U.S. mission in Afghanistan by permitting a Koran-burning in Florida when the U.S. military is fundamentally, 'militantly' hostile to Afghan culture in ways that incite resistance to the U.S. occupation. In a discussion of the plan to burn a Koran on MSNBC's Countdown last nite, Keith Olbermann and a guest kept talking about the danger to U.S. military "men and women" of a backlash to that burning. Neither KO nor his guest seemed to see the stupidity of the U.S. insistence on sending female soldiers to kill men in Afghanistan! Every female soldier sent to occupy and dominate Afghanistan is a powerful incentive to Afghan men to resist, and a HUGE recruiting tool for the Taliban. Afghan society does not want women to kill men nor order men around. But Radical Feminism, LESBIAN feminism, is more important to the castrated U.S. military than is winning the war in Afghanistan.
+
Nor does Afghan society want to be told what to do by a female Secretary of State, but Obama is only the most recent of castrated American Presidents who insist on representing the United States abroad as completely p*-whipped, speaking with a woman's voice. That is surely calculated to win friends and influence warlords, right? Oh, wait a minute. No, that is actually practically intended to offend men — and women — in traditional societies. American-style Radical Feminism is hugely unpopular even among women across the Third World. They don't want any part of it, as emerged very publicly in a world conference on women several years ago.
+
So let's not exaggerate the importance of an isolated incident in which one Koran might be burned, while ignoring the massive stupidity of sending women soldiers to Afghanistan, which is a daily, endless insult to Afghan men AND to Afghan women, who do not aspire to serve in the military and kill men.
+
The U.S. military is drastically more lesbian-feminist than even U.S. society. The Pentagon's utter insensitivity to the loathsomeness of radical, lesbian feminism among all segments of Afghan society shows that they are NOT really concerned about offending Afghan sensibilities at all. Which do you think alienates Afghan men more? A Koran-burning in Florida, 8,000 miles away, or women with guns in Afghanistan, bossing men around in their own village? The lesbian-feminism of the U.S. military (despite its ostensible disapproval of lesbianism in its official "Don't ask, don't tell" policy) recruits Afghans to the Taliban cause in droves.
+
(The current U.S. military death toll in Iraq, according to the website "Iraq Coalition Casualties", is 4,418 — for Israel.)
- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 4:23 PM