U.S. soldier uses Quran for target practice Within 45 minutes this headline had over 300
Diggs and 200 comments. The comments section instantly became a flame thread of one user offending another with their opinions on the issue.
Remember when the
first amendment protected your personal expression?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion unless I am offended, or prohibit the free exercise thereof unless I am offended; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press unless I am offended; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble unless I am offended ....
Oops I grabbed the human resource version. You know where I am going with this. This brings up an interesting question... do you have a right not to be offended? Sounds interesting, but before getting too far we must find the operational definition of
offend.
(Insert typical overused dictionary definition here)
Offend
1 a: to transgress the moral or divine law
b: to violate a law or rule : do wrong
2 a: to cause difficulty, discomfort, or injury
b: to cause dislike, anger, or vexation
I see two different meanings above. The first definition includes moral and divine in the same sentence. Notice the words are
separated by OR. I like that because not all of us believe the two are mutually exclusive to one another. I might be
offended if it implied otherwise.
The latter definition addresses the personal touch. This is where offense interacts with
us. This is why being offended incites such strong emotional reactions. This will be the definition I use. I don't have the energy to wrote about morality today.
So back to the CNN story. A sniper in the US military marked a target on a book, scribbled an explicative onto one of the pages, propped it up, and fired on it. He claimed he did not know it was a
Quran. My opinion (and that of U.S. officials) is that he knew exactly what it was. The effect of his actions led to protests by the local villagers, his reassignment back to the United States, and a mushy apology by our armed forces.
While I was asleep one night did a cadre of militant human resource employees rise up and overpower the government? Is our country's military now responsible for the feel goods of every person our soldiers and citizens offend? A book was shot with a gun. To many millions this book is very sacred, to many millions more it is as useful as an email from Classmates.com. Can Islam really expect the value applied to an artifact of religious significance mean the same to someone who does not share in their beliefs? Apparently. And apparently it only applies to Islam. In 2001 the Taliban dynamited the
Buddhas of Bamyan in
Afghanistan because they failed to place the same value on them that a Buddhist might. I am still unsure how many death vows have been placed on Muslim people by the intolerant and vindictive Buddhists.
(Spot the sarcasm and win a free
Playstation 3! But not really)
I should probably clear up my point; you
have the right to be offended even if you prefer not to be. You
have the right to live in a world where diversity is reality even when you prefer everyone think like you. You even
have the right to expect people to agree with you even though you can't make them. You do
have the right to look down on other people and think less of them because you worship the correct sky fairy even if they are happy believing something else. I
have the right to think less of you for your age, religion, sexual orientation, race, choice of home furnishings, gas consumption of your vehicle or your
insistence that your Apple computer makes you look smarter even though doing so would make me intolerant.
I have the right to desecrate any religious artifact (that belongs to me) no matter the political stance of the culture or country that perceives it as sacred.
Now let me also explain the difference between right/entitlement and action. Personally, I would not be interested in shooting a
Quran or a Bible. Why? For the same reasons Muslims and Christians don't want me to. They value these items. I chose to respect their beliefs. By doing so I can learn from them and that respect can be reciprocated. We don't need to be anarchists to have rights. The decision of the soldier to shoot that
Quran may have been offensive, but it was not against the law (U.S. law at least). Obviously he has some personal beliefs that differ strongly from those of the host country, but shooting a phone book would not really have been an effective way to express himself would it?
The media that followed focused on the apology:
"I come before you here seeking your forgiveness," Hammond said to tribal leaders and others at the apology ceremony. "In the most humble manner I look in your eyes today and I say please forgive me and my soldiers." (because he and all his other soldiers of course share the blame)
Another military official kissed a Quran and presented it as "a humble gift" to the tribal leaders. (hope he wasn't a Christian, that's heresy)
Sheikh Hamadi al-Qirtani, in a speech on behalf of all tribal sheiks of Radhwaniya, called the incident "aggression against the entire Islamic world." (as opposed to Suicide Bomber Kills 4, 10 Killed Near Pakistani Army Base, Taliban Suicide Bomber Kills 12, Suicide Bomber Kills 22)
I understand there is a difference between books and bodies. But it seems that some people place greater value on one more than the other.
(Spot the sarcasm and win a free Playstation 3! But not really)
found @ http://www.nataliedee.com/020408/im-gonna-vote-for-mccain-cause-hes-a-white-dude.jpg
