Burning Flags and Religious Books

Perhaps, I should title this piece as "burning American flags and Korans" since that is the specific issue. Yet, we can also discuss this issue in more generic terms. Of course, we know that in America, both are protected as freedom of expression. Now comes Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who questions whether Koran-burning would be protected while flag-burning is still OK.

So what is the difference? Is it the flag as a national symbol as opposed to a religious book as a religious symbol? Is it the emotional reaction that would be expected-hardly a constitutional point, in my view.

Burning a flag is a sight that angers most all nationalities. That is certainly true of the American flag, which gets burned everywhere including here at home. There are not too many (if any)cases of it leading to deadly violence-a bloody nose perhaps. Desecrating religious symbols is also considered a disgusting act. Christians have been angered by images of Christ in a jar of urine and Mary encased in elephant dung. It did not lead to rioting, violence and death, however. Jews have endured the desecration of their synagogues and cemeteries. How many instances have there been of violent Jewish retaliation?

Does Justice Breyer favor a legal sanction against burning the Koran? What about the Bible and the Torah? Is his reasoning based on the fact that "offenses against Islamic sensibility" have led to riots and deaths?

In the wake of that dopey pastor in Florida making a publicity splash (with help from the media) about burning Korans, riots predictably ensued in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The last I heard, there were at least five deaths in Afghanistan. Would that be a reason to legally ban burning Korans, while not protecting American flags, Bibles and Torahs?

As previously stated, I disagree with desecrating religious symbols and that includes Islamic ones as well. I think Pastor Terry Jones crossed the line over to intolerance even though, thankfully, he cancelled the Koran burning. Perhaps, there is a distinction to be made between tolerance and acceptance. Where does that line get drawn, and what does "Tolerance" demand of us? Let's take the case of Catholicism, for example, since I am a Protestant married to a Catholic. Do I agree with all the beliefs of the Catholic Church? No. As a non-Catholic (while I was attending Catholic churches-I no longer do), I never took communion. I was not supposed to as a non-Catholic, and I didn't believe that I would be actually taking the blood and body of Christ. Did I find that intolerable? No. If Catholics believe that, I am fine with it. What I could not tolerate was what I perceived as the Catholic Church's tacit acceptance of and covering up of child sexual abuse by priests. That's when I walked out-literally.

Similarly, as a Christian, I (as a matter of faith)disagree with the belief of Jews that Christ was not the son of God. I can tolerate that however. If they refuse to engage in everyday acts like switching electrical items on and off during certain religious holidays, I can disagree but still not get upset over it. (One of my current nicknames to certain-or perhaps one-anti-Semite is "pathetic shabbos goy", which I have previously explained.)

Of course, this post would not be complete if I didn't address Islam here. There are certain facets of Islam I disagree with but am perfectly willing to tolerate. I don't agree that Mohammed is the final prophet, but if Muslims do, I am OK with that. As a Christian, I have no plans (nor would I be allowed to) visit Mecca on a Hajj. If Muslims feel the need to do that, that's fine with me. If they refuse to eat pork or drink alcohol (my Turkish friends excepted), that's fine. I respect that, but it doesn't apply to my life. If women feel the need to dress modestly and wear a hijab, I respect that even if I feel it is not necessary.

Of course, there are things going on in the world today in the name of Islam that I don't agree with nor can I accept or tolerate. We know what they are. Of course, many will argue that they are not truly representative of Islam and that is a different argument.

To be more specific, I will write all day long about my lack of tolerance for honor-killings, stoning women to death for adultery, intolerance for non-Muslims,
Jew-hatred, violence carried out in the name of Islam, beheadings, suicide bombings, radicals, those who intend to establish Islam as the religion of America and the world, shariah law, dhimmitude, and all that.

I am very comfortable in doing that because I know that I am not talking about all Muslims. Once I do that, I know I will have crossed the line. Perhaps, therein lies the difference between tolerance and not tolerating intolerance or that which is intolerable.