Official response to the February 22 burning of copies of the Koran at Bagram Airfield by NATO troops has been a breathtakingly thorough exercise in damage control.
The profusion of apologies from government and military officials, including but not limited to President Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. John Allen, who is commanding NATO forces in Afghanistan, are only the beginning. According to the New York Times:
Within a few hours of learning about the episode, General Allen ordered an investigation, and by day’s end he issued an order for every coalition soldier in Afghanistan to complete training in the next 10 days in “the proper handling of religious materials.”
Well, all I can say is it’s good to know that administration and military leadership are concerned about armed forces understanding “the proper handling of religious materials.” One could easily have gotten a very different idea from that earlier incident in which military personnel at Bagram Airfield—the very same location—burned stacks of confiscated Bibles.
Military personnel threw away, and ultimately burned, confiscated Bibles that were printed in the two most common Afghan languages amid concern they would be used to try to convert Afghans, a Defense Department spokesman said Tuesday.
The unsolicited Bibles sent by a church in the United States were confiscated about a year ago at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan because military rules forbid troops of any religion from proselytizing while deployed there, Lt. Col. Mark Wright said.
Such religious outreach can endanger American troops and civilians in the devoutly Muslim nation, Wright said.
“The decision was made that it was a ‘force protection’ measure to throw them away, because, if they did get out, it could be perceived by Afghans that the U.S. government or the U.S. military was trying to convert Muslims,” Wright told CNN on Tuesday.
Troops at posts in war zones are required to burn their trash, Wright said.
You can see where military personnel at Bagram Airfield might have been confused about the propriety of burning religious materials after that, can’t you? I mean, it was okay when it was burning Bibles in 2009. Now suddenly in 2012 it’s not okay to burn Korans? How were the poor troops meant to know the difference?
At least, I assume President Obama had no problem with the 2009 Bible burnings at Bagram Airfield. I sure don’t remember him and other government and military falling over themselves to apologize for that.
The reality is that the Obama administration couldn’t care less about “the proper handling of religious materials.” Their sole concern is what will or won’t offend potentially violent Muslims—not because of any exaggerated respect for Islam in particular (looney “Obama is a secret Muslim” conspiracy theorists to the contrary notwithstanding), but because angry Muslims equals violence. Who cares about burning Christian holy books? What are Christians going to do about it?
In practice, “the proper handling of religious materials” means: If religious objects offend Muslims, burn them. But if the burning of religious objects offends Muslims, apologize for burning them. Whatever it takes not to offend Muslims, because, again, they’re the ones who get violent when offended.
As a postscript: Some American Christians feel, not entirely wrongly, that Muslim veneration of the Koran exceeds Christian veneration of the Bible, and therefore desecrating Korans is a bigger deal to Muslims than desecrating the Bible is to Christians. That’s not entirely incorrect. For Muslims, the Koran is the supreme self-revelation of God, while for Christians the supreme self-revelation of God is not the Bible, but Jesus Christ himself.
Still, surely no one thinks the government or military should be in the business of assigning degrees of holiness to religious articles, and according respect only to objects of maximum sacredness (say, the Blessed Sacrament, but not a cross or a rosary). If “the proper handling of religious materials” is an issue at all, it should apply as much to Bibles as to Korans.
It should also be noted that the perception that Muslim veneration of the Koran exceeds Christian veneration of the Bible is somewhat exaggerated in the minds of Western Christians, and especially Western Protestants, among whom the whole categories of sacred objects, veneration and desecration are significantly atrophied.
To the Afghani Christians for whom the burned Bibles were intended, as well as Christians throughout the Middle East and in the global South, desecration of the Bible is a much bigger deal than it would be to most American Protestants.
As a case in point, consider the outraged response of Malaysian Christians not long ago when the Malay government refused to release Bibles referring to God as Allah unless they were stamped with the words “For Christian Use Only.” Malay Christians strongly objected to this as a descration of their holy book in a way that many American Christians would not understand.
What do you think?
Comments
Post a Comment
I think Christians are usually the grown-ups when it comes to the handling of religious objects or criticism and ridicule of religious beliefs and religious practices. It would be a shame if the military’s and the administration’s actions to maintain force protection were taken as an excuse for Christians to also behave childishly and violently over symbolic offenses.
That said, I suspect the Koran burning was just a religiously justifiable excuse for Afghans to demonstrate their burning resentment at ten plus years of American occupation and upheaval that still is resulting in numerous civilian casualties. Apologies and troop training in handling religious objects aren’t going to mitigate those grievances, and may have no effect at all on protests and rioting. I guess Obama and the military just aren’t willing to take that risk with their soldiers’ lives. It is easy to imagine what most of the soldiers are thinking about this training, and how much actual respect for Islam it will engender.
Are you saying that the government and military should only be concerned about not desecrating what is venerated by children, not what is venerated by grown-ups?
How about the fact that while he is apologizing about mishandling religious rights out of one side of his mouth, here at home he is trampling all over them! Where is OUR apology for the HHS mandate?
“Are you saying that the government and military should only be concerned about not desecrating what is venerated by children, not what is venerated by grown-ups?”
I’m saying the government is only concerned about doing what it can to protect the troops. The apology and the training are tactics meant to prevent troops from getting killed. So was the burning of the bibles written in Afghan languages. If Christians start threatening violence I suppose they will start getting apologies and promises to train troops too. None of it will influence what the troops really think about religious objects or what will happen to them out of the public eye. Adults put human life above inanimate objects, and Christians mostly are adults, so they don’t demand to be placated like children over what happens to inanimate objects in chaotic circumstances.
I suspect the ire of the Malaysian Christians, like that of the Afghans, is not really about the religious objects. It’s really about their second-class treatment by their government, rather than a few words printed on the bibles.
Cowalker:
In other words, you basically agree with my thesis that the blah about “the proper handling of religious materials” is rank hypocrisy—that it’s not about ordinary human decency or respect for the religious feelings of others—and all they really mean is “how to placate Muslim thugs.”
By this sheerly pragmatic standard, armed forces desecrating churches or even the Blessed Sacrament itself would not be cause for administration or military apologies or remedial action, as long as Christians continue their “grown-up” nonviolent behavior.
Incidentally, if by “grown-up” you mean “not getting violent,” then I agree with your assessment. But if you mean that Christians should embrace a post-Enlightenment, desacrilized worldview in which “inanimate objects” are never more than clouds of atoms, and veneration and sacrilege are childish superstitions that mean nothing to adults, then you’re really saying that Christians should cease being fully Christian.
FYI, there is a typo in the headline of this article: “Appeasement” is spelled wrong.
Here’s an article from “National Review” online about the episode:
www.nationalreview.com/articles/291925/why-apologize-afghanistan-andrew-c-mccarthy
Thought this would be of interest to readers here!
If Obama were a Star Wars character, he’d be C-3PO, and his strategy is to ‘let the wookie win.’
Uh…why weren’t the “offensive” bibles just shipped back to the church which had sent them?
Niki Allen: The reason given by the military was that they were afraid the church would just try to get the Bibles to Afghanis again.
Why in the world were we burning ANY books out of a library? Why were my tax dollars used that way? Where they dangerous books?
When I was in the military, I can’t imagine doing that.
Anyone know why?
I’m very annoyed that Obama is apologizing to them for all this instead of calling the rioters out for, you know, killing several people because those people offended their religious beliefs (at which point they’re acting no better than the Taliban).
What I’ve been wondering about this whole mess is what is considered proper method of disposing of Korans in the Islamic faith? My understanding is that Catholics say burning of old, worn out, or unusable sacred books, including bibles and missals and sacramentaries, is a proper method of disposal. I’m remember this being an issue when we switched translations, and a few blogs discussed what the proper method of disposal for books with the obsolete translation was. Surely Muslims must have a method for disposing of old or damaged Korans.
Steven,
Should we honestly be surprised that this President, time after time has attacked religious identity and freedom in America?
What does Obama stand to lose by pushing his socialistic agenda down our throats, because he knows the modern American is far too complacent to give a drop of water in Hades about that evil word of ‘politics’.
When it comes to morally upright leadership based on ethics has never appeared in the current Presidential Administration.
Why should we be surprised that he doesn’t give a rat’s derrière what we think? I just hope people have the good sense to send Mr. Obama to an early retirement and let a real man of integrity take that office. Because clearly integrity is a very rare commodity coming from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue lately.
God bless you, Steven for speaking plainly.
“looney ‘Obama is a secret Muslim’ conspiracy theorists notwithstanding”.
He speaks fluent Arabic; raised in his formative years in a Muslim country; out of his own mouth has said the Muslim morning call to prayer “is the most beautiful sound” on earth; again out of his own mouth said to ABC “my Muslim faith”, twice. Bowed to the Saudi king.
So if I claimed to be Muslim but believed in the Ressurrection; ate pork; refused to perform cliterectomies on women or engage in pederesty; didn’t stone women to death for alleged infidelity; and on everal occasions referred to my Christian faith, you’d still believe anything that came out of my mouth? Seriously?
On the main point of the article, bible burning versus Koran burning, clearly the lack of respect for Christianity (actually, outright hate) manifests itself in the HHS mandate. No freedom here in the US to practice our faith and no freedom in Afghanistan (for Christians) to practice their faith. We must fear the Moon-god worshippers’ wrath. Yet, while we (and the West in general) have an increasing population of Islamists, we contracept and abort our posterity out of existence. Do the math; in time, we will have our rights “voted” out of existence because obviously our rights aren’t unalienable.
We will be assaulted from the left and extreme right of the Islamists.
Dawg_em: False dichotomy much? I don’t have to believe anything that comes out of Obama’s mouth to be confident that he isn’t Muslim (or more than nominally Christian; he’s as wholly secular a man to occupy the White House as we’ve ever had).
“Why in the world were we burning ANY books out of a library? Why were my tax dollars used that way?”
The extreme irony of this whole situation is that the books were consigned to the rubish heap because they had been desecrated by the terrorists who were using them to pass notes back and forth to each other will detained. Yep, they had already been ruined…by Muslims.
I was always told that the Catholic position on caring for any religious object that was damamged or couldn’t be used was that it should always be respecfully burned or burried. If that is correct, then what should outrage us it that there was no respect. They burned it to keep people from evanglizing. Even if that was something truly horrible, they have no grounds to assume that the christians who they were meant to go to needed them for anything other than personal use. And since when did American Soldiers become the Arab Police, enforceing a hostile cultures unjust and inhuman anti-Chistian laws?
[off topic content removed]
Gary Muehlbauer: I know you mean well, but comboxes are for discussing the topic at hand, not spamming on unrelated topics. Thanks.
Will apologies embolden the local population? Perhaps we overestimate our enemies. Do the tribes people see things as we do or do they look at our assignment of “dignity” upon them as something akin to an entitlement or possibly fear? While basic human dignity is a tenant of our faith no malice was intended by the burning of the Koran. An explanation should suffice no apologies necessary.
Elaine Jackson is right: They were burned because they were passing notes back and forth to each other [terrorists] and desecrating their own Koran. Our soldiers were not being hateful toward their Koran it was what they wrote on it. These terrorist will do anything to incite a riot….if they truly believed in their Koran, they would be peaceful (so I am told, as I never read the book) My heart goes out to all the parents who have lost their sons, most so young, for a bunch of archaic practicing people. As someone on Fox News said “all the President had to say was that it was unfortunate that it happened, not an apology from him or anyone else” [4 apologies so far?] It was disgusting when he said that the ones who were behind this would be reprimanded {or something to that effect]
Roger Hollis:
1. “Out of the fullness of his heart a man speaks,” and “By their fruits you shall know them.” God will judge us all according to His wisdom; in the meantime we all “construe according to [our] wits” (A Man for All Seasons).
2. Perhaps you can be a bit clearer about your meaning, friend. I’m not sure what acts you think I’m supporting. I think respect for religion and for religious sensibilities should be applied across the board.
With all due respect, no question bibles and korans and other sacramentals deserve respect from adherents. Is anybody assuming that more respect is due such printed materials, while disrespecting God’s most holy creation of this world, the people made in his very likeness? The recent incidences suggest a real lack of perspective, that it is ok to destroy persons, but not pieces of paper. So does it seem among Mohammed’s followers. I cannot help but see such behavior as revelation.
Please note there are NO women among the protesters. This is just an excuse to be violent together against Americans. Let us be done with these people.
“In practice, “the proper handling of religious materials” means: If religious objects offend Muslims, burn them. But if the burning of religious objects offends Muslims, apologize for burning them. Whatever it takes not to offend Muslims, because, again, they’re the ones who get violent when offended.”
What has not been said is why the Koran’s were burnt. It was because the prisoners were writting in them to pass on instructions to other prisoners who would get the Koran next. An Iman on TV said that to write on or in the Koran is a sacrilige. The Koran’s in question were confiscated. What was the military to do with them? They were already desecrated accoring to Sharia law so they should have been destroyed.
Let’s get real here people. The Taliban is using this to bring about MORE hate for Americans who are there to help them establish some semblence of a society—on that gives women a right to work and come outside without a man (a basic human right one would think).
For our President to appologize to these completely irrational people is a disgrace. And in the same month, he attacks the Catholic Church head on with his HHS mandate that the Church pay for abortion pills. This is the same President that told a crowd in Chiro that the US is NOT a Christian nation. It is clear to any thinking American that Barack Hussein Obama is more friendly to Moslems than he is to Christians.
Has Obama burnt the Koran ? Or has the American nation asked the Koran to be burnt ? Or has American forces been asked to burn the Koran ? Or has U S A asked any other agencies to arrange to burn the Koran ? If the answer is No for all these, then why Obama apologised ? The reason for apology are:-
1 Fear of destruction and killings of Americans and any repitition of World Trade Centre demolition by Muslims
2 Appeasing the Muslims of America and the world
3 Showing that Obama is very secular or very balanced when religious issues come up
4 Little or no regard and respect for Christian sufferings in Muslim countries
The outcome of his unintelligent behaviour is a “win” for Muslims. Now at every step America can be asked to bend or crawl. The European countries and America cannot read the mind of Muslims and so all these good gestures and accommodation. Can you expect one gesture namely permitting gathering and prayer by christians in Saudi Arabia ?
So what do you gain ? Only an advance by Alqueda !
the reality is that most Christians, haven’t a clue in “whom or what they believe” beyond a “cross and a bible”. few if any would defend either to a vote, let alone to riot /protest or to the death!!!
This is why the Islamic religion is spreading faster than any other.
Christ “died” for the Jewish/Christian belief system.
We as Americans have , some still are and most never would. Our very existance came about because of those who fought and died to establish a Judeao Christian Nation. Prayer, fasting and backbone, Obama, our nation and indeed you and I must start here>
The Bible is our HOLY BOOK
As I understand it, Christians are not (yet) threatening mass extermination because of a few burned Bibles. Obama is up against the wall on apologizing to Islam because he has to be diplomatic to countries that are willing to start a nuclear war over burning a Koran.
It is quite likely that Obama doesn’t care about burning “holy” books—especially when there are millions of copies and even websites devoted to the text.
Someone wrote “the Bible is our holy book”. However, there is quite a bit of difference with the Koran to Muslims. We believe the Bible is holy because it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Muslims believe that the Koran was dictated word for word from Allah to Mohammed and that the Koran is physically in heaven and worshiped along with Allah. So, to them it is more than a book. The fact that most of it was plegerised from the Torah, the New Testament and other appocryphal Christian writings, is not accepted by Moslems. For instance, the story of Mary’s infancy is in the Koran and is word for word from the “Protoevangelican of James” which was floating around Arabia in the sixth century.
I thought we had intelligent men and women in the military. Who gave the order to burn these Korans? They didn’t know what they were burning? I thought they had a good good reason for burning them. You know they hide behind women and children. So why wouldn’t they hide informtion in these Korans. Let’s burn them all or get out.
This whole article is simply trying to support the idiotic idea that Obama is a Muslim. He is acting as a president who has to be diplomatic.
Laura: You don’t read well, do you, friend?
Where is the apology from Hamid Karzai for the killing of innocent U.S. military members by a supposed ally from the Afghan National Army? Why is there no massive public outcry or demonstration over these innocent men’s deaths?
I find it difficult to imagine anyone burning the Bible. Since it is the inspired Word of God, one should not even place a Bible lower than table level when not reading it. It makes me cringe to see a Bible placed on the floor at a Christian meeting when it has been used during discussion or prayer.
You know as adults, Catholics haven’t been worried about the destruction of Bibles, because they are in so many hotels and motels. I’m always surprised that Muslims, get so bent out of shape about the destruction of a Koran, but have no problem killing someone who believes even just a little bit differently than themselves. Catholics would never do that, well yes we did, Baptists, Anabaptists,Arianism,which Pope do you follow and on and on.
But the idiots who are crying about the indignity of a diplomatic response by the President are just nuts. Remember when President Bush, called the start of the war a Crusade? And the response to that from the middle east? Semantics sometimes is all that allows the world to survive. An apology sometimes is just an apology, it doesn’t mean I’m weaker, you are of course right. It was an acknowledgement that mistakes were made. A stupid mistake in a world already at war with us, but a mistake none the less.
This criticism is bizarre, as Obama’s reaction to the incident is fully consistent with U.S. precedent: in 2008, President Bush similarly apologized to Iraq’s prime minister following the desecration of a Quran by American military personnel.
Obama owes an apology to the wives and mothers of the 1800+ American soldiers killed in Afganhistan as well as the hundreds of wounded. As Commander-in-Chief Obama it was his decision to send our young men into a war that could not be won. The British,French and even the Russians warned Obama, but he refused to listen. And the 18+ billion cost and casualities escalate. Where are the protests? Has the promise of free condomns silenced the critics?
The biggest enemy of the Catholic church are it’s own congregations. Someone once told me there’s no differnce between Catholics and Protestants. I see no difference. There’s more Catholics supporting abortion, embryonic stem cell research, homosexuality, artificial birth control, gays adopting children than there are opposed. A Protestant minister agreed with Obama, we’re not a christian nation, what christian antion would support this agenda?
This article, along with many of the articles posted on this site, could not be more timely, as I believe we are a nation in free fall, especially when one considers how audacity and scandal appear to have become the trademarks for decisions made by this White House.
As a counterpoint to this, I must say that in general I find the discussion here light years more civil and refreshing than on the comment boards conducted by the Huffington Post and Yahoo News. I made the regrettable error, first of reading their blog “news” stories, then of reading the accompanying posts. Most are disturbing if not outright sadistic, awash with derogatory and abusive language. The publishers claim to have policies and “moderators” that regulate such speech, but in fact there is an excessively high tolerance for slander and calumny.
I found myself having to resist, in a Darwinian, survival of the fittest sort of way, instinctively responding in kind. Particularly in light of the Catholic Church, and America bashing that goes on at these sites, and overwhelmingly, by open supporters of President Obama. Still, I am only able to refrain because of a desire to grow, as feeble an effort as it seems at times, to be more Christ-like. THANK YOU National Catholic Register and EWTN for working to bring civility to the blogosphere. Thank you to all whom have participated in this discussion.
This article, along with many of the articles posted on this site, could not be more timely, as I believe we are a nation in free fall, especially when one considers how audacity and scandal appear to have become the trademarks for decisions made by this White House. As a counterpoint to this, I must say that in general I find the discussion here light years more civil and refreshing than on the comment boards conducted by the Huffington Post and Yahoo News. I made the regrettable error, first of reading their blog “news” stories, then of reading the accompanying posts. Most are disturbing if not outright sadistic, awash with derogatory and abusive language. The publishers claim to have policies and “moderators” that regulate such speech, but in fact there is an excessively high tolerance for slander and calumny. I found myself having to resist, in a Darwinian, survival of the fittest sort of way, instinctively responding in kind. Particularly in light of the Catholic Church, and America bashing that goes on at these sites, and overwhelmingly, by open supporters of President Obama. Still I am only able to refrain because of a desire to grow, as feeble an effort as it seems at times, to be more Christ-like. THANK YOU National Catholic Register and EWTN for working to bring civility to the blogosphere. Thank you to all whom have participated in this discussion.
The burning of the koran was accidental, but the burning of the bibles was intentional. It is our troops and those of our allies enforcing islam upon the people of afghanistan. If our troops are taught to do it there for the sake of safety, remember that they will have been trained for it when it happens here. If safety is more important than freedom, what are our troops doing there? It is an abomination for christianity to be treated as evil. The fact that it is done by ourselves and we do nothing about it and care more about a lesser offense to non christians than the offense to Our Lord Jesus Christ is a shame upon us. Lord have mercy.
“as Obama’s reaction to the incident is fully consistent with U.S. precedent: in 2008, President Bush similarly apologized to Iraq’s prime minister following the desecration of a Quran by American military personnel.”
So, Bush is a secret Muslim too?
Some have pointed out that the Koran is different than our Bible in how we treat it or look at it. Think of it this way: what if someone took a consecrated host and did threw it in the trash. That would be similar to what muslims are saying. To we Catholics that would be like taking Jesus and throwing him in the trash.
This was done by a university professor a few years ago who got hold of a consecrated host and threw it in his trash with his banana peel and other assorted waste. He took photos of it. You can Google it. There was no apology by a president, there was no outcry from main stream media - and (here is the important part) there were no killings in the streets of atheists or university professors.
Where were Obama apologies when armed forces burned Bibles?
—And where is Obama’s apology to Bishop Dolan when he lied to his face concerning Obamacare? Where is Obama’s apology to the catholics for wanting to force contraception availability in medical insurance, at schools and hospitals?
Obama—stifling freedom, religion, morals, values, risking military protection, saying no to a pipeline to create jobs, failed “green” investments, doing nothing to stop ballooning gas prices and adding 3 trillion more to our deficit of the USA—All in just a mere 3 years!
toledo bill: why would any sitting president be expected to apologize for a university professor for desecrating a host? Apologize to whom? He’s the commander-in-chief, not a university dean. Regardless, the church deems it permissible to burn bibles as a method of disposal, Muslims do not. Even if it wasn’t, it was our own people that did it. If a foreign military was in our country and burned bibles, then yeah, I’d have a problem with it, and would expect an apology if it was an accident.
tiger, Actually I agree the president shouldn’t apologize. Thats the point. However to use your logic, it was a state institution/university - therefore it was the state who desecrated the host, i.e., “our people”. So using your logic the president should apologize. The point is the president should have condemned the violence afterwards. And a further point that Catholics are not going to go out and kill anyone - especially innocent people, people who had nothing to do with it. Your missing the point by getting all upset because someone mentioned “the president”. It is funny how america, including the president and press, are oversensitive to some religious groups but not Catholics.
Easy there, Toledo bill: “Your (sic) missing the point by getting all upset because someone mentioned “the president”. The article is titled “Where were Obama apologies when armed forces burned Bibles?” and pretty much every comment mentions the president. When you commented that there was no apology by a president for the desecration of a host at a university, I thought you were implying that there should have been one. My fault, seems we agree. By the way, for the “Obama hates Catholics” crowd, Bush was president when the professor in Minnesota desecrated the host.
And you made a good point – there was no rioting and killing in the streets. Muslims seem to get outraged easily, which is why it made perfect sense for the president to apologize, to try to minimize the outrage and inevitable rioting and danger to our troops. But the point of the article is that the president should have apologized to someone when the Bibles were burned. Again I ask: to whom? The military personnel were likely Christians themselves. Was there a perceived danger that Christians were going to riot and start murdering Americans? Not likely.
There’s a world of difference between an invading Christian military burning the Koran in a Muslim country and burning translated Bibles that Afghans might perceive as an attempt by the U.S. government to try to convert Muslims. But Greydanus claims that these scenarios are essentially the same, and more evidence of the president’s anti-Christian stance. Blogger, please.
tiger, we do agree. but….apologizing in order to put a lid on extremists? really? It only makes it worse. Extremists or terrorists like to know that they are getting press, getting under your skin, etc. I have 8 children. When they yell and cry, sometimes the best you can do is ignore it - because many times it is just to get under your skin and get their way. Reacting to crying, yelling, extremism or terrorists - is exactly what they want. I would not want to be the one to make the call whether to apologize or not in the Koran-burning situation. But if you are going to apologize, at least don’t condone the killings by not speaking out. Not only were “our people” killed who had nothing to do with it but so were other innocents. This is not about all “Muslims who seem to get outraged easily”, as you put it. This is about a few killers. And for the sake of the majority of peaceful Muslims who get a bad rap, someone should have pointed out the farce of killing in the name of religion.
Toledo Bill - can’t disagree with you there either, it would have been fitting for him to condemn the violence and murders resulting from this accidental act. It would have been an excellent opportunity to remind everyone that Christians don’t exhibit this same behavior to perceived slights against their religion, and call on the ordinary Muslims to denounce the extremists and the killing. I still believe, as even the author concedes, that the apology was merely to address the belief that “angry Muslims equals violence”. Nothing more, nothing less. Cheers.
Why *should* he apologise if some Bibles have been destroyed ? It makes sense to apologise to people of a different religion & nation - but the case for doing so is not as clear when one’s co-religionists & fellow-citizens have had copies of their sacred book destroyed; they should be robust enough to take these things in their stride. After all, they, being Christians, ought to know that a human being matters far more than a Bible or church or other such object. I just can’t get excited about this, because if I flared up every time my convictions were insulted, I would have a regiment of ulcers. Getting in a flap about something that is ultimately rather trivial simply isn’t worth it.
manticore: You don’t read well, do you, friend? Your comments contribute to the marginalization of the Afghan Christian community, which, since it’s currently in the process of being persecuted out of existence thanks to our actions, soon won’t be there any more to be marginalized.
tiger:
Was the “apology” purely a tactical attempt to placate irrational violence-prone thugs, without any reference at all to whether anything was actually done wrong? If so, then it is cowardice, hypocrisy and kowtowing to terrorists.
But the remedial training to which all military personnel in Afghanistan were subjected suggests that an actual principle was involved: the “proper handling of religious materials.” Well, fine, if that’s a principle, then let it be a principle. And let it apply to the religious materials of all religions.
In other words, if Afghan Christians (in whose languages the Bibles were printed) are either not inclined, or not in a position, to kill people and blow stuff up, who cares if their religion is insulted? Apologies are only for dangerous people, not powerless people. We’re only pretending we respect religious feelings; all we really respect is violence.
Steven – to your points
Let’s assume the apology was tactical. You feel that’s cowardly, hypocritical and kowtowing to terrorists. Really, which option do you feel would minimize the danger to our troops and nor further degrade our image in Afghanistan, saying nothing or offering an apology? Are the Muslim extremists high-fiving each other because the president “kowtowed” to them? Are we in high-school here – haha, made you apologize! Only the anti-Obama crowd is claiming this. Bush apologized under similar circumstances in 2008, perhaps I missed your outrage then.
However you seem to feel that the training on proper handling of religious materials suggests that an actual principal was involved. I happen to agree with this view. It is not permitted to burn the Koran, that’s what the fuss is about Steven. From what I can gather, burning a bible to dispose of it is permitted by Catholics and other Christian denominations. If I am wrong here, please fill me in. Otherwise, there is no need to apologize to Christians since there was no improper handling. Besides, Christians apologizing to other Christians for offending their religious sensibilities is ridiculous on its face. We’re on the same theological side of the fence.
Mark: It’s pretty uncontroversially accepted that negotiating with or capitulating to terrorists only encourages more terrorism. If preventing retaliatory violence (i.e., terrorism) were the sole consideration, then that would be cowardly hypocrisy.
Burning worn, unusable Bibles, like burning worn, unusable flags, is a respectful way to dispose of a venerable article whose condition is no longer in keeping with its revered status and the proper use to which such articles are meant to be put. Burning a brand-new flag because some regard it as an offensive symbol is something completely different, and burning brand-new Bibles is even worse.
Last time I checked, the United States was a democratic republic with a secular constitution, not a country with an established church. I am also not aware of NATO having a Christian identity. President Obama, Def Sec Panetta and General Allen apologized to the Aghanis not on behalf of Christians, but on behalf of NATO, the US government and the US armed forces.
The suggestion that Afghani Christians should be A-OK with the US burning Bibles because “we’re all theologically on the same side” would be absurd if it weren’t a) exactly how our enemies would like to characterize the two sides (Christians versus Muslims)—and, far worse, b) so grotesquely insensitive to the plight of a people being systematically destroyed because of our actions.
Are you aware what the Afghan Christian community thinks of us? “On the same side” is not a phrase likely to come up in such a discussion. But then, who cares what they think? How many US troops have they killed lately? They are irrelevant to our national interests in the area, so forget them.
I agree that negotiating or capitulating to terrorists is a losing strategy. But by any fair interpretation, an apology does not fit into this category. Is there no offense worthy of an apology in your view? Your failure to allow that Bush’s apology betrays his cowardly hypocrisy as well is revealing. Let’s not forget who started this hideous war which is indeed aiding in destroying Christians in other nations.
The fact is that we both agree that the apology was on the principal that religious materials were not handled in accordance with custom. Muslims consider this an abhorrent act, and in fact have strict policies on disposal, none of which include burning. Now you suggest that burning Bibles is only acceptable only if they are worn or unusable, and therefore we should be outraged because they were new. Burning Bibles, even new ones, is not an offense against our religion, at least not in this context. You’d have us believe that if these Bibles were worn or unusable, you’d be just fine with burning them. Please.
You fail to perceive the ocean of difference between an invading foreign military (Christian, let’s face it) committing a sacrilegious act against the Koran in a Muslim country, and the burning of bibles by that very same military to help them better accomplish their mission. Right, wrong, or unintentional, these are the facts. You feel that they are equally worthy of scorn and deserving of apology. It’s a terrible analogy, and a terrible article.
Mark: Apparently the indigenous Christian community of Afghanistan, which predates the founding of Islam, doesn’t figure in your thinking on this subject, any more than it does the military’s. Why, they should be happy that they’ve been invaded by good Christians who burn Bibles in their language and set them up to get slaughtered. American Christians aren’t offended by the military in Afghanistan burning Pashtun and Dari Bibles, so why should Afghani Christians feel differently? Don’t they realize the American mission is the only thing that matters? Why would we apologize to them? They aren’t a threat. They don’t matter.
Steven: You seem to have concluded that my concern for the safety of the troops means I support this war. Allow me to clarify: I do not, and consider it a major failing of Obama to have let this war continue during his presidency. I must admit, I don’t know if the Afghani Christians were offended by the burning of the Bibles, do you? Wouldn’t this be important to know before proclaiming that the president should apologize to them?
I’m not sure where you’re going with this - do you think they would have preferred that the military not confiscate the Bibles? Would they disagree with the decision to prevent an American soldier from distributing Bibles translated into Pashtun and Dari to Muslims? Or was it just the burning that you feel they object to? Help me out here, please tell me how they feel.
I sense that your professed comradeship with the Afghani Christian community is merely a thin veneer covering your distaste for Obama because of the HHS mandate. Without any evidence that they were offended, you feel that Obama should have apologized to the 500-8000 Afghani Christians (US state department estimate) in this country of about 29 million. Since there are no churches and it is illegal to convert, I’d wager there are more Christians in any local Walmart right this minute than in all of Afghanistan. Good to know you’ve got their back Steve.
Mark: I’m not sure what I said that led you to suspect that I had leaped to a false conclusion about your view of the war. I hadn’t.
I’m even less sure—no, I’ll pass on the euphemism. You don’t “sense” anything about my “professed comradeship with the Afghani Christian community” being a “thin veneer covering my distaste for Obama because of the HHS mandate.” You’re guessing, and guessing uncharitably and cynically — and wrongly, on too many counts to go into. I could lay on the table my bona fides as a supporter of Christianity and Christian work in the Middle East for the last however many years of my life, but why should I dignify your jaundiced guesses?
You ask one good question: How did the Afghan Christians feel about the Bible burnings? As far as I know, at the time it wasn’t reported so they probably didn’t know. What I can tell you is that Bibles in Pashto and Dari are contraband treasure to Afghan Christians, particularly converts. Many Afghan Christians must pretend to be Muslims, and if they have Bibles at all they hide them as carefully and secretly as they can, or else don’t even dare to have them for fear their houses may be searched. Afghan Christians have been driven in recent years to meet in secret, varying the location and even the day (not on Sunday!) to avoid suspicion, sharing Bibles with those who don’t have them. How do you think they would feel about Bibles in their languages being burned? Like starving men watching shipments of food thrown into the sewer.
You’re right that there are no churches in Afghanistan. Do you know when that happened? March 2010. That’s when the last church in Afghanistan was razed. There have been churches in the past. No more. The situation is similarly dire in Iraq, where the indigenous Christian population also is being persecuted out of existence.
I cited the example of Christian outrage in Malaysia over the “For Christian Use Only” stamps on the Bibles. I told that story to an American, and her response was, “They should be happy about it. It will only give the Bibles an allure of the forbidden to Muslims. They’ll make more converts than ever.” Whether she was right or wrong is beside the point: The point is her response was characteristically Western, in contrast to the outrage over desecration that is the response of our brethren in the less developed world. It is cultural imperialism to assume that Christians everywhere should think like middle-class Americans.
Charles:
No. I think being a thoughtful human being qualifies me to criticize NATO and the President and his national security team in conduct of a war and foreign policy.
(On a side note, anyone who isn’t qualified to write about anything other than cinema isn’t qualified to write even about cinema, because cinema is about everything. Comments like yours always make me wonder if non-critics imagine critics living in some cineaste ivory tower where people just talk about movies all day long.)
On the other hand, I’m giving you space to spew your venom too.
Is THAT our mandate! Here I’ve been scratching my head wondering all this time. And you knew the truth all along! Thanks for clearing that up, friend.
Charles: In other words, like Cowalker you basically agree that the blah about “the proper handling of religious materials” is rank hypocrisy that really only means “how to placate Muslim thugs,” and they could care less about respect for religious materials of threatened minorities who don’t pose a threat. Because what is really respected is not religious feeling but violence.
I forgive you.
Steven: I’ll respectfully take back the guess that your support for Afghani Christians is anything but sincere. My apologies, I wasn’t aware of your background. I suppose it was your sarcastic and hyperbolic reply that “they should be happy that they’ve been invaded” and “don’t they realize the American mission is the only thing that matters?” that I interpreted as a criticism of alleged support for this war.
That aside, you’re preaching to the choir here on Muslim intolerance towards Christians in Afghanistan. I’m fully aware of why there are no churches in Afghanistan any longer. But treasured or not by Afghan Christians, distributing Bibles to them by the military could have had enormous negative consequences. If it was perceived that the US government was handing them out, how do you think the Afghanis would spin that? They were of course right to confiscate them under their own military rules against proselytizing, the issue that remains is how they should have been handled.
Actually I thought I asked several good questions, most of which you failed to respond to:
So what should have been done with the (new and usable) Bibles? Is there a protocol for disposal? Even we don’t seem to know, how would the military?
Why so silent about the apology that Bush offered?
Is there any offense to Muslims that warrants an apology or would any such statement be kowtowing? How about the murder of 16 civilians by a US soldier yesterday? OK with you if Obama apologizes for that (hint – even the right zealot Santorum thinks he should).
Mark: Fair enough, I take back my sarcastic and hyperbolic comments, which FWIW were not wholly directed to your comments only but also to the point of view of the invaders/occupiers who have neglected the plight of the Afghan Christians — under Bush as well as Obama.
Some clarifications:
a) I am well aware that passing out the Bibles, if known and publicized, could have been disastrous. I’m moved by the stories of military personnel making gifts of Bibles to grateful Afghans, but it’s playing with fire. Confiscating the Bibles was a reasonable move.
b) I don’t buy the argument that the Bibles couldn’t be sent back to the donor church, lest they simply try again to get the Bibles to the Afghans. If the concern is that they would send them back through military channels, we’ve seen that our leaders can have all military personnel in Afghanistan given refresher training on religious respect within a matter of days. Send the Bibles back and make sure that military personnel understand that they aren’t to hand out Bibles. If the donor church were to pursue some other, non-military means of getting the Bibles to Afghans, that’s their business. At any rate, burning the Bibles to prevent the donor church from attempting to distribute them even by civilian means is a terrible thing to do. (There are other things that could have been done with the Bibles. For example, they could have been channeled to communities of Afghan Christians in diaspora outside Afghanistan.)
c) I thought I’d said already (though I’ve debated this in more than one fora and haven’t posted everything I’ve written here) that I have no problem with Obama or anyone else offering an apology for a violation of some real principle that is acknowledged and taken seriously as such. That includes disrespectful treatment of religious materials, which I think should be an occasion of apology, and CERTAINLY for the horrific murder spree. What I object to here is the invocation of respect for religious feeling, and apologies made on that basis, when the evidence suggests that it’s only the religious feelings of violent Muslims that is respected, not religious feeling itself.
d) FWIW, I think this apology—from the president, sec def, NATO commander and other officials—was arguably somewhat over the top, and that this president is arguably too ready to apologize for our country and not ready enough to stand up for it. By “standing up for our country” I don’t mean swaggering bellicosity, nor do I mean arrogating ever more unrestrained executive power to do anything at all in the name of protecting Americans, even murdering Americans on American soil—and yes, I was against executive overreaching when Bush was doing it, too.
Obama’s neither Muslim nor Christian, he’s a narcissistic liar. He told the bishops several years ago that he would respect our conscience. He told the graduating class at Notre Dame he would respect our conscience. He lied both times. You can not believe what anyone says when they have a reputation of being a pathological liar. the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. Obama lied to us before, he’ll soon lie to us again. Soon, we’ll be forced to pay for abortions.
P.S. Mark: I should have said I appreciate the moderate tone of your last reply. Thanks.
Bob: While narcissism is a diagnosis I’m not prepared to make, and while I wouldn’t want to try to name the last occupant of the Oval Office who didn’t lie to the American people, I can’t disagree with your comment that “Soon we’ll be forced to pay for abortions.” In fact, for many Americans, “soon” is “now.”
Steven: Likewise, good chatting with you. Cheers.
Did you really expect anything else from the first President elected to office outright refusing to wear an American Flag lapel pin or place his hand over his heart at the playing of our National Anthem? Face it, we are having all these socio-cultural and political strains with him because the man is not American (in his heart). Even if he is “technically” a citizen by birth, he never grew up here. He never had the American experience from childhood. This is why we should be very careful whenever OPRAH endorses and bankrolls someone for office.
In the Pew, check your references on the flag pin and especially the hand over heart, the anthem hadn’t started yet in the most publicised photo.
“not American (in his heart)”. OMG, you can read what is in peoples hearts. What is in Dick Cheneys? Since it isn’t his own heart, you can’t read it can you?
Go back to the pew and only watch Fox, stay well informed.
Obama12.
Move over Rover. If he’s your messiah, you can stay equally connected with NPR.
ERYERSDGSADDSFGHADS<a >clip in hair extensions</a> FGBNFSDGSADSDFH
FGBNFADFHGDAFADFHGAD<a >Pandora Jewelry</a> FGBNFADFGASDGDSFGHADS
ADFHGSDGSADASDFHGAD<a >clip in hair extensions</a> DSGAASDGASDSDFH
DSGASDGSADSDFH<a >hair extensions</a>
ERYERSDGSADDSFGHADS
The import thing is that they knowledge what they have done and ask for apologies.
www.ludishairextensions.com
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.