Pastor Jones and the barbarians

The religious nutters are at it again. Pastor Terry Jones finally made good on his threat from last year to burn a Koran, and mobs of barbarians in Afghanistan have reacted by murdering people who, as even their faith-addled brains must realize, have no connection with Jones.

The outrage directed against Jones raises three distinct issues. The first is whether his action was free expression and thus worthy of protection, or should he be penalized for it in some way ("held accountable" seems to be the favored weasel-word). Harry Reid and Lindsey Graham have suggested this. On that question, the answer is clear. Burning a Koran is an expression of a viewpoint. It harms no one and violates no one's rights (unless the Koran in question was the property of someone else who did not consent to its being destroyed). Jones's action was free expression deserving the full protection of the First Amendment -- period. No following sentence starting with "but".

The claim that it could be banned or punished as "incitement" falls apart on serious consideration. Muslims are humans; humans have agency and responsibility. The mobs in Afghanistan bear 100% of the responsibility for their own actions -- period. You and I, too, sometimes hear of things that shock and grossly offend us. We have the choice whether or not to react by murdering people. We choose not to.

The minute we decide that free expression can be limited because people offended by it might react violently, we've given a veto to whoever is most violent. If, say, one of those nutjobs who thinks Obama was born in Kenya threatens to blow up a building if you publish a blog post ridiculing the birth-certificate "controversy", then by the same argument, you shouldn't be allowed to publish it.

Again: It is precisely for such cases that the protections of the First Amendment are needed. The First Amendment is for people like the American Nazis, Pastor Jones, Imam Abdul-Rauf, Fred Phelps, pornographers, etc. Expression which does not shock or offend anyone has no need of any special protection.

(I'm well aware that Jones is a religious fanatic who probably believes things that would offend me as much as his Koran-burning offended the thugs in Afghanistan. That makes no difference. Offensive views must be protected no matter whom they offend.)

The second issue is the odd suggestion that there is some sort of equivalence between the Koran-burning and the violent reaction. Andrew Sullivan, who should know better, puts it thus:

"Both acts are, to my mind, egregiously unhinged. What on earth does it achieve to burn a holy book? And how screwed up is a religion which responds to this by murdering UN workers? Both mindsets are sick versions of religious fanaticism."

Nonsense. Publicly destroying the symbol of a belief system "achieves" the goal of dramatically expressing one's opposition to that belief system. It is not a violent act. It can't remotely be compared with murdering people because you are offended.

Finally, there's the old claim that religion and its symbols and trinkets are somehow "special" and more deserving of immunity from criticism and symbolic attack than other categories of ideas. This is what motivates some religious people to respond to non- violent blasphemy and sacrilege with violence or threats of it. The very fact that religion tries to impose such a limit on freedom of expression makes it more worthy of attack, not less.

I stand firmly by what I said here: In the face of such bullying, blasphemy is no longer merely a right -- it is a duty.