Group Plans to Rip Bible Apart. No Word from White House on How This is a Bad Idea.
A group know as the Backyard Skeptics plans on ripping pages out of a Bible at Hunting Beach Pier today.
“We’re not there to burn the Bible or desecrate,” Bruce Gleason, director of Backyard Skeptics, said. “There are plenty verses in the Bible that if you did any of those things today, you’d be thrown in jail immediately.”
The dictionary defines “desecrate” as “to treat a sacred place or sacred object shamefully or with great disrespect.” We have a hard time thinking that ripping pages out of the Bible is not “desecration,” but that is not the purpose of this post.
The purpose of this post is to highlight the differences between the coverage of this event and the coverage of Pastor Terry Jones’ desecration of the Koran.
Jones’ act was treated several ways. There were those who felt while Jones had the legal right to burn a Koran under the First Amendment, he should not. We agree with them. The difference between those that held that opinion is that many on the right felt and continue to feel destroying, damaging and desecrating a book of faith is simply not what this country is about. We may disagree with others and even other religions, but we want to be respectful to other people and their faiths (or lack of faith.)
The White House came to the same conclusion of burning the Koran was wrong, but for a slightly different reason:
“If he’s listening, I just hope he understands that what he’s proposing to do is completely contrary to our values … this country has been built on the notions of religious freedom and religious tolerance,” Obama said. “As a very practical matter, as commander (in) chief of the armed forces of the United States, I just want him to understand that this stunt that he is pulling could greatly endanger our young men and women in uniform who are in Iraq, who are in Afghanistan.”
It is almost as if part of Obama’s stance against the Koran burning was based upon the reaction of others.
“You know, you could have serious violence in places like Pakistan or Afghanistan,” he said. “This could increase the recruitment of individuals who’d be willing to blow themselves up in American cities, or European cities.”
Obama also hinted that should Jones, 58, go through with his book burning, he could be scorched with legal consequences.
“My understanding is that he can be cited for public burning,” the President said. “But that’s the extent of the laws that we have available to us.”
Certainly the President was not alone in his stance. Hillary Clinton and General David Petraeus are but two who cited the threat of violence as a reason not to burn the Koran.
From the right, people were more inclined to say something along the lines of “this is not who we are. We disagree, but we tolerate other people’s views. Who we are as Christians is not exhibited by burning a different religion’s book of faith.”
For example, Sarah Palin at the time “tweeted:”
“Koran Burning Is Insensitive, Unnecessary; Pastor Jones, Please Stand Down.”
It is almost as if the Right was saying “you have the right to burn the Koran, but doing so would be morally repugnant and against our beliefs as Americans.”
The Left, including the White House seemed to be saying “you shouldn’t do this because of the danger you will put people in.”
While the Left and Obama are right about the danger, there is a greater danger in retreating from the rights of individuals under the Constitution because of a threats.
Concerning the desecration of the Bible by the atheist group in Huntington Beach, the White House said the following:
Yep. Nothing.
Nadda.
Zero.
Zilch.
To be fair, we aren’t sure if the White House knows about this event. That alone should tell you something. A person desecrates a Koran, and it is world wide news. A person desecrates a Bible, it is just another day and if there isn’t much happening, it may get mentioned in a local paper.
The fact that the desecration of one book of faith is treated so differently than the desecration of another book of faith is troubling. In reality, the only difference is the threat of violence from followers of one of the religions.
The message seems to be rather clear: if you want your religion respected, threaten to kill people.
