Victimized In The Name of God
I saw her today at the reception
In her glass was a bleeding man
She was practiced at the art of deception
Well I could tell by her bloodstained hands
You can’t always get what you want
You can’t always get what you want
You can’t always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you just might find
You just might find
You get what you need
The Rolling Stones
Nearly one decade to the day, September 10th 2001, America was a different place than today. Perhaps naïve, perhaps too trusting, perhaps too involved in the freedom of others. However, history will never reflect that America was focused on attacking others in the name of religion.
Historically there are several wars that have involved the United States of America, none of which was an assertion of religious views. The American Revolutionary War was not so different from the rising up of an oppressed people with urban combat. Pro-democratic loyalists revolted against what they perceived as tyranny… primarily financial. They did not however rise up to assert religious freedoms. America fought to defend itself or its allies in World War I and II and in Kuwait. America fought the brutality in South East Asia from the Communist backed Khmer Rouge, but not against religious intolerance. In all of the historic battles American leaders never once avoided taking action because we may be perceived as wrong and ultimately punished. Why then on this day are we reflecting on September 11th 2001? We reflect because it was an extreme change in the consciousness of the United States. The societal consciousness was changed from one of perceived peace, to one of anger, to one of retaliation, to one of frustration and ultimately to one of tolerant resolve.
America was attacked on September 11th 2001, not by Muslims, not by followers of Islam, not by the Qur’an, but by 19 terrorists who harbored a deep-seated hatred for the American ideal. These terrorists were Muslim, sponsored by al Qaeda and who attacked America in the maligned name of Islam. This fact is straight forward enough, so why then does this concept get so convoluted and the motivation for the attack then placed as blame and in some minds justified by prior American actions? Did attacking Iraq really cause the anti-American Muslims to rise up and kill Americans and scores more of their own people? Did American involvement in attacking Taliban dominated Afghanistan really incite peaceful and tolerant Muslims to rise up and convert to an extremist element and hate Americans even more than they didn’t before?
18th Century French writer, Voltaire spent his life writing about intolerance. In a story of Scarmentado’s travels, a traveler flees Europe, and countries like England, Spain, and China, due to religious persecution. He is forced to stay in India, and goes to the court of Aurangzeb, an Indian Muslim king, and a French friend. This friend is not able to hold his tongue back, and tells Aurangzeb that in Europe they do not kill their brothers or poison their fathers for a throne. This is translated to the king. The wise traveler immediately runs away at night with this friend. The next day the interpreter is executed.
Voltaire’s final sentiments after fighting intolerance during the new enlightened age, escape if you can. Despite Voltaire’s intellect, his realizations and frustrations are the punctuation of his lifelong struggle for tolerance.
Nine years after 9/11, a Florida Pastor wants to stage a personal spectacle of burning the Islamic Holy book, The Qur’an. The book that Islamic believers universally feel is the only true revelation of God’s wishes and is held above all others. A book that proclaims to some Islamic followers that tolerance and coexistence is the key factor, and to other Islamic followers that they must in the name of Allah, rise up and kill the infidels at any occasion. How is it that the interpretation of this Holy book can deliver such a diametrically opposed message? One Islamic scholar defined the Qur’an message as:
“Never will the Jews and the Christians approve of you until you follow their religion. Say, Indeed the guidance of Allaah is the only guidance; and if you follow their desires after what has come to you of knowledge, you would have against Allaah no protector or helper” (Al-Baqarah: 120) and also: “You will find the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers (to be) the Jews and those who associate others with Allaah…” (Al-Maa’idah: 82).
There seems to be a pretext of conflict and dominance of non-believers, however, we are told by scholars such as Imam Rauf that Islam is about tolerance and acceptance of all religions. In fact we are told that the “Ground Zero Mosque” is a cultural center that will be open to all and promote religious diversity and tolerance. Imam Rauf states that he is open to moving the “Ground Zero Mosque,” but that “The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack.” This statement is such an ironic choice of words for the consistently inconsistent Imam.
We are told that Muslim Americans condemned the 9/11 attacks and all extremist behavior, but that burning the Qur’an would incite those Muslims who do not hate us to apparently reverse their tolerant views of Americans, based upon the actions of one American, and hate us enough to endanger our troop? Is this to say that the actions of a few radicals are not to be grouped together with the collective religion and should be tolerated, as long as the actions are against Americans? It would seem that this perception is at the very least biased and at the very most, disturbingly contradictory.
Not too long ago there was an AP article about anti-religious tolerance by Muslim extremists.
2002-SEP-24: Radical fundamentalist Muslim extremists attacked the Swaminarayan temple. This Hindu temple is located on a 23-acre complex in Gandhinagar, the state capital of the Indian state of Gujarat. This temple is particularly popular to Hindus, Muslims, Jews and Christians alike, because it houses scriptures of all of the major world religions in its Hall of Harmony. It is a well-known cultural center visited by over two million people each year. By selecting this temple for attack, among all of the Hindu temples in India, the radical Muslim terrorists might have beenaiming a blow against the concept of religious tolerance, rather than simply hoping to kill Hindus at prayer. Two extremists invaded the temple and murdered people indiscriminately. The total death toll was about 30, including the two terrorists, one Indian commando who died in the counterattack, and four children. Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, his deputy Lal Krishnan Advani and opposition leader Sonia Gandhi quickly visited the temple together stressing the need for religious harmony and the avoidance of revenge attacks against Indian Muslims. The Hindu fundamentalist World Hindu Council has called for a statewide strike.
Are we to believe that if indeed there were such a place in Iraq or Afghanistan, where US combat troops were not in danger, they would now be in danger over the actions of a Florida preacher? That the very people who are being protected from the brutalities that historically existed at the hands of the Taliban and al Qaeda, would view this action and strive to hurt US troops? Or perhaps that the insurgency would be in some way emboldened to attack our troops with more aggression than they do now? I wonder if the 16 Russian Orthodox Christian men, women and children who were killed while grocery shopping yesterday in Russia’s North Caucasus, somehow insulted Islamic extremists out of their previous tolerance. The last victim of the bomb, which consisted of metal bars, bolts and ball bearings, was a one-year-old child.
Clearly, all Muslims are not terrorists, and should not be treated as such. Just as clearly, all Americans are not burning the Qur’an and should not be threatened, not even with backhanded justifications of Islamic leaders such as Imam Rauf, or for that matter, American leaders such as General David Petraeus.
General Petraeus told the Wall Street Journal regarding the burning of the Qur’an, “It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort,” “It is precisely the kind of action the Taliban uses and could cause significant problems. Not just here, but everywhere in the world we are engaged with the Islamic community.”
God help us General if this war and the safety of the troops waging it is based on the, “no ruffled feathers left behind” battle plan. The Wall Street Journal article also depicts the Afghan sentiment and possibly the very point of this article as well.
Hundreds of Afghans railed against the United States Monday and called for President Barack Obama’s death during protests about Dove World Outreach Center’s plans to burn the Islamic holy book on Sept. 11. The crowd in Kabul, numbering as many as 500, chanted “Long live Islam” and “Death to America” as they listened to fiery speeches from members of parliament, provincial council deputies, and Islamic clerics who criticized the U.S. and demanded the withdrawal of foreign troops from the country. Some threw rocks when a U.S. military convoy passed, but speakers shouted at them to stop and told police to arrest anyone who disobeyed.
May 20, 2009
Military personnel threw away and eventually burned confiscated Bibles translated into the two most common Afghan languages, amid concerns that they would be used to convert Afghans. “Such religious outreach can endanger American troops and civilians in the devoutly Muslin nation.” Said DOD spokesman Lt. Col. Mark Wright. “Troops at posts in war zones are required to burn their trash”, Wright continued. That statement and actions could have given cause to all Christians to hate the military, Lt. Col. Wright or the church that translated and sent the Bibles, but no one seemed to fear this potential action or discuss the possibility to adverse outcomes before hand. The factual reason that this came to light was that the Al Jazeera network took the one year-old video of an American military group worship service and aired the video with the claim that US troops were being encouraged to spread Christianity. The potential threat of American soldiers in a war zone spreading Christianity was enough for the troops to once again incite potential violence against them as stated by Lt. Col Wright, “This could lead to violence against troops or civilians.” So essentially, we burned the Bible to avoid violent retribution and any misunderstandings of our Islamic friends and the result was a video of American Christian combat troops worshipping in a Muslim nation, which could incite violence from our non-Christian friends?
October 17, 2009
Pastor Mark Grizzard of the Amazing Grace Baptist Church in Canton, North Carolina, gathered his followers to burn Bibles and other Christian books other than their accepted King James version translation, believing it is the only true version of God’s word. The books, Grizzard believed were Satanic and “perversions of Scripture.” This act while offensive to some is protected by the Constitution, the same Constitution that enforces religious tolerance in America. It is a shame however, that our conservative forefathers did not consider including a clause that the above declaration is based on all people exhibiting some degree of sensitivity and common sense. We do know that our forefathers did not write the historic document with the intention of appeasing those who disagreed.
Time and time again we are hearing tolerance being preached in two unique usages. Tolerance used to justify Islamic actions and yet another form of tolerance to negatively describe American reaction.
Within America there are deeply felt disagreements. Our movies, media and press often depict Christianity in a less than favorable light. We have never given thought to the possibility that if a movie is released that offends, it may be met with violent opposition, endangering the producers or actors. If there were a threat of this nature, the media would release the picture and hope for tolerance. So the self-evident answer is that America is uniquely more tolerant than those from Islamic nations? No, America has been forced and continues to be forced to realize that we cannot exist without tolerance. We were not born with the innate ability for introspection; we were enlightened to this realization through the nonacceptance of any other way of life. We were told how life was and if we chose to exist within the socially acceptable umbrella, we were to conform. It is not a wise choice to attempt teaching tolerance to others by fearing their opposition. We would never attempt to raise our children with rules that the penalty if broken would shift like sand so that we don’t incite anger or retribution from them. If we did raise children in that fashion, they would grow up confused as to what any rule means.
Voltaire was right…Escape if you can.
