Tel-Chai Nation

Senator Lindsay Graham, whom some might call a RINO, has called for banning burning of the Koran, apparently because he doesn't think Muslims should know better than to resort to violence over such things. And he apparently sees that fool pastor Terry Jones as the problem, not the jihadists. And lest we forget, Graham doesn't seem to realize that even without Koran burning, Muslims can still resort to violence.

Now, like Donald Douglas, I too think it was utterly stupid of Jones to propose a bonfire for Korans, mainly because in order to investigate how the jihadist mindset is created, that's why it's better to analyze the texts inside them. But at the same time, it's wrong to ban burning of them selectively or otherwise, because it's nothing compared to physical violence, a leading specialty of jihad.

Another thing conveniently overlooked by the MSM, and certainly the Afghan Islamofascists themselves, is that in the end, Jones didn't burn any Korans, and was likely just seeking media attention (H/T: Betsy's Page). But even this is not enough for such monsters. Update: see here for a clearer revelation I found of just what unfortunately did happen.

Ed Morrissey addressed this whole issue at The Week:

If Sen. Graham wants to condemn burning the Koran, he’s welcome to do so. If he wants to propose a resolution in the Senate condemning the Florida preacher’s actions, he is welcome to do that as well. Such a resolution is an equally valid form of protest, but otherwise legally meaningless. When Graham purports to support a ban on burning the Koran, however, that crosses the line – actually, several lines. Not only would it ban free political speech as it has been defined for at least decades in this country, but also property rights as well, since Jones owned the book. It would also create, in effect, a protected class for the Koran, which would also violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Even if the ban was expanded to other religious texts, it would still cross establishment-clause lines, as well as prompt questions about what qualifies as a religious text or not. Does Dianetics get federal protection? How about the Bhagavad Gita? The Book of Shadows? The Silmarillion? One suspects that in theory the legal class would extend infinitely, but in practice, the government would only take interest in restraining protests involving the Koran due to the perceived security issues – again making [Islam] a protected class.

We would soon find that such a ban does nothing to improve security at home or abroad. The people who murdered the aid workers did not get magically transformed into murderers from peaceful pacifists by Jones’ remote and obscure protest from halfway around the world. The murders took place because the extremists involved decided to kill, and the responsibility is theirs. To believe otherwise is to reject entirely the legal and moral principles of responsibility and free will, which are the very basis of liberty. Without those principles, the constitution wouldn’t apply at all to any human endeavor, whether in wartime or not.

That sums it up very well. Graham would do well to cut out his own foolishness and simply criticize Jones for the reasons I and a few others alluded to. As for Gen. Petraeus, who also acted very awkwardly regarding this whole mess, I think it can be said he'll no longer be that appreciated by the right.

Labels: dhimmitude, islam, jihad, RINOs, United States