I just read that the crazy mustache pastor in Florida has called off plans to burn the curan scheduled for today. The idea was staggeringly bad and I don’t know of anyone who supported the actual plan, although some people tried to draw parellels between this and the ground zero mosque. I personally think these comparisons are bullshit because the whole “Of course they can, but should they” doesn’t result in the same answer in each instance.
The crazy preacher dude, which I’ll admitt is probably an unfair characterization of him (although not really), does in fact have the right to burn whatever books he wants just as long as it’s not bad for the enviroment. The second question as to whether he should or shouldn’t is a difinitive “no”. I can’t think of a time that burning books would ever be considered a good idea. Well maybe in the following scenarios:
- It’s the end of the world and some super cold tornado is comming towards the library you are camped out in and you need the warmth
- You are on a deserted island and need to signal a plane but there’s nothing else flamable on the island.
- The books are written by Stephanie myers and you happen to have every single copy in existance.
- Every book on earth has been backed up onto iPads now that Steve Jobs rules the world, and all those books are taking up a lot of space.
- You own a struggling bookstore but you have a ton of fire insurance money not actively making you rich.
So burning books are bad, and relgious book burning doubly bad. How about the Mosque. Yes they can cause they bought it legally have zoning and the building commision was like “yeah go for it”. So should they? Well yeah, the should. The whole purpose of the center was to promote inter faith experiences and relationships in the community…. which should hopefully get people to understand that Islam doesn’t = 9/11 terrorists. In fact the whole argument that the mosque is in bad taste is based around the idea that the building of it is a slap in the face to families of the victims who died in the towers. I hate to say it, but isn’t the problem that the victims families think that it is a slap in the face.
Granted I have no qualms about someone who lost someone in 9/11 being rationally or irrationally angry at muslims as a whole. I can’t comprehend your lost, and I can’t expect you to be objective or open minded regarding anything related to 9/11.
This isn’t a fair comparison in many ways, but sitting at a panera bread i can’t think of a better analogy. If I predominately black church was going to be built near the former headquarters of the triple K, would the Klan think of it as a slap in the face. Maybe. Wow this is a terrible analogy. Still my point is, you can’t change your plans and actions just because it might offend or upset someone, especially if that person is getting upset for reasons that are flawed or misguided. Once again, I think the victim’s families have valid reasons for being upset (loss of loved ones) but the focus of their anger might be misdirected.
Kind of like if the police arrested the wrong guy for murdering your wife. Yeah it’s ok to have all that anger and hatred in your heart, but you might be pointing it at the wrong person. Kind of like O.J… nah i’m joking, that guy totally did it. How about…. Richard Kimbel. you know, the fugitive. Yeah that was a good movie and Harrison Fod is always money.
Ok so in summation The mustache preacher in Florida may or may not be crazy, and I think it’s great that he met with the emam in NYC and called off the burning. The ground zero Mosque = Richard Kimbel or Andy Duffrain. I will never say any of these thoughts to someone who was directly affected by the 9/11 attacks. I’m terrible with analogies.