Quran-burning, the Constitution, and other stuff

I really don't care much about blogging, but this one needs some comment. The pastor and church in Gainesville, Florida that threaten to burn the Quran on the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks is the subject.

I'd like to say two things to start:

1. The First Amendment protects his actions.
2. He shouldn't do it.

The First Amendment protects speech generally. There are certain forms of speech that aren't protected, such as threats to intimidate or incitements to violence. I'm not going to analyze it here, but I don't think this falls into either category (no matter how general my brief descriptions of the exceptions are).

If someone wants to burn a book or a flag or post on the internet things that others--even a majority of people--find offensive, they can do that. But if this pastor purports to follow Jesus Christ, he won't.

My concerns are manifold, but a couple are:

1. Burning the Quran, a book that many (likely more than 1 billion) peace-loving people look to as a source of inspiration, spiritual guidance, and connection to God, is a terrible symbolic gesture to get at terrorists. Someone hating America and choosing to burn the American flag is successfully attacking a potent symbol of the people and policies they hate. Like it or not, it sends a potent message. But a terrorist who purports to be a Muslim does not speak for Islam and does not follow the tenets of the Quran consistently. It'd be paramount to burning the American flag, not to express hatred or opposition to America, but to the KKK. The KKK may hide behind the First Amendment--itself being a symbol of America--but the KKK is inherently un-American. The organization has a history of offending the constitutional rights of others, through terrorism, murder, racism, disorder, etc. Burning the American flag to protest the KKK, which traditionally makes a mockery of the constitution, makes no sense. Burning the Quran to protest people who make a mockery of its teachings likewise makes no sense.

2. As General Patraeus has pointed out, images of a group of Americans burning the Quran is likely to incite anger and opposition and threaten the safety and lives of Americans (and I would say possibly others, including Christians generally) abroad. This pastor's actions could result in the deaths of others. I've heard it argued that the irresponsible reaction of others should not change our behavior. I disagree. We don't live in a vacuum. If I see a crazy man ranting and raving in the road and wielding a gun--clearly unstable and unpredictable--am I justified in taunting and ridiculing him? Can I justify it by arguing that his decision to shoot people in reaction to my taunts is an outrageous response? No--that would be socially irresponsible and the argument is disingenuous. We can't pretend we live in a vacuum and that our actions don't affect others and contribute to the things they do. This pastor cannot escape the consequences of his actions and is partly responsible for the foreseeable outcome.

3. It is patently un-Christian. This pastor (and I'm deliberately omitting his name) apparently considers himself a Christian. Would Jesus Christ, after whom a Christian purports to align him or herself, engage in such shenanigans in order to make his point? No. Christ was not shy to condemn hypocrisy and harm to children, among others, and even engaged in symbolically significant demonstrations (take the cleansing of the temple, which was both directly and symbolically significant) but He never stooped to half-baked symbolic gestures in order to unnecessarily defend. The Man who stated "Blessed are the peacemakers" would frown on this behavior. This pastor is not following Christ. And the Sept. 11 terrorists weren't following the Quran.

I have other objections, but those hit on my main points.

I've heard it argued that this pastor has the constitutional right to burn the Quran and that his right is being infringed when we discourage his behavior. Really???? I reject outright two unspoken premises to that argument. First, just because we have a constitutional right doesn't mean we should exercise it in every manner (the corollary to that is that a legal right does not create a moral obligation). Second, speaking out against someone's free speech does not mean we're demeaning the constitution or infringing on that speech.

On the first point, morality overlaps with the law, but they're not the same. I have a legal right to sue my neighbor for a fence encroaching on my property, but that does not mean I'm morally justified in taking that conflict into court. I believe that despite the legal right to sue, we shouldn't sue unless we've made an effort to resolve things another way (there are exceptions, of course, such as needing a restraining order to protect oneself physically, among many others). If we look to what the law PERMITS us to do as guidance for how to BEHAVE, then society will fall apart. Everyone has a legal right infringed upon or offended everyday. The courts would be inundated with endless lawsuits if we confused our RIGHT to sue with the idea of whether we SHOULD sue.

So this pastor may have the free speech rights to burn the Quran, but that doesn't mean he's morally justified in it. I would say his decision is not only foolish, but unnecessarily offensive to countless people who in deep earnestness and sincerity look to the Quran with well-founded reverence and for spiritual inspiration and guidance. Those who have been touched by the Quran's teachings and consider it a potent symbol of their faith and loyalty to God are likely to be offended and hurt by this pastor's actions. Not all of them, but enough to make it socially irresponsible and unnecessarily offensive.

On the second point, how does speaking out against something someone says--even though protected by the Constitution--offend the Constitution? The same amendment he invokes to burn the Quran, I invoke to say he shouldn't. I don't believe the government should prevent him. That's what the Bill of Rights does--it protects against government infringement. And I don't believe that I, despite my misgivings, should prevent him. But that doesn't mean I think it's a good idea. And my expressing that does not in any way prevent him from doing whatever he chooses to do: burn or not.

So those are my thoughts. I have much more to say, but I have work to do. But I want my opinion to be unambiguous, so I'll restate it here: I think the pastor has the constitutionally protected right to burn the Quran and I hope with all my heart he doesn't and I think he's foolish if he does. And if he does and it leads to the death or injury of another, his hands aren't clean. He may or may not be guilty of bloodshed at that point, but he's certainly not perfectly innocent. He can't ignore the effects of his decisions and he's arrogant if he ignores those, such as General Patraeus, who are better positioned to know of its potential impact.

Let's not get so wrapped up in philosophizing about the pastor's rights that we forget the more relevant question of what he should do. The fact that he has a right to burn the Quran does not mean he should. Legal rights do not impel us to exercise them in every way.