“It’s always something — if it ain’t one thing, it’s another.”

If you’re old enough to have lived through the 1970s, you recognize my post title:  Gilda Radner’s famous character Roseanne Roseannadanna would let loose with a foolish tirade, and then wrap it up by saying “It’s always something — if it ain’t one thing, it’s another.”  Someone needs to resurrect that character, or at least that catch-phrase, to appreciate fully what’s going on right now with the Koran burning.

Everyone I know thinks that that Pastor Terry Jones is an insensitive, ill-mannered, publicity-seeking lout for having burned the Koran.  That he did so is un-American, not because it is illegal, but because it runs counter to deep American values that find repugnant the thought of book-burning, especially burning religious books, and that embrace a pluralism that shows respect for different religions.  Ordinary Americans, not crude attention seekers such as Jones, understand that America is blessed with a huge population of peace-loving, law-abiding Muslims, and that it’s a rude, mean-spirited slap in the face to treat their holy book so badly.  Can I make it any plainer that I am disgusted with what Jones did?

Sadly, however, significant numbers of Americans, all (almost all?) liberal (including Lindsay Graham, who is RINO through and through) think that what Jones did requires government intervention, in the form of federal laws banning Koran burning, or religious book burning, or all book burning, or Islam insulting, or whatever the liberal thinks will work to placate the Muslims so that they don’t riot and murder innocent UN workers.  (And while, God knows, I hold no brief for the UN, to invade a UN compound and murder workers in cold blood is the slaughter of the innocents.)

Those who are willing to pass such laws fail to understand two things.  First, one of the things that makes America uniquely American is the reverence we hold for free speech, even ugly free speech.  While we draw the line at two types of free speech — pedophilia and direct incitement to violence, a la “go out and lynch the person right now” — we otherwise believe that free speech can only benefit us.  Ugly, mean speech should be countered by smart speech, compelling speech, apologetic speech (if necessary), persuasive speech, etc.

If we allow the government to ban ugly speech, we suddenly find ourselves in a situation that sees the government determining what’s ugly.  I can tell you with certainty that, during the first two years of the Obama administration, he and Congress, working together, would happily have banned all anti-Obama speech on the ground that it was racist hate speech.  It’s a slippery slope and a censoring government will always slide you down to the midden at the bottom of the hill as quickly as possible.

Second, the other thing that the pro-censorship crowd utterly fails to understand is that banning Koran burning or book burning or smack talk about Islam is only the beginning.  Those who haven’t been paying attention don’t appreciate that this is the religion of perpetual outrage.  “It’s always something — if it ain’t one thing, it’s another.”

If we ban Koran burning, the agitators amongst the Muslims will riot about pigs on tissue boxes, something that excited much outrage in England a few years ago.  If we ban pigs on tissue boxes, they’ll start killing over abstract ice cream logos that, if held at a certain angle and viewed with one eye half closed, could possibly be understood to be Arabic script for Allah, something that also happened in England.  If we ban ice cream labels, they’ll agitate wildly over people entering Muslim-driven cabs with alcohol bottles or seeing eye dogs, as Muslims did in St. Paul, Minnesota.  If we ban alcohol and dogs in cabs, the jihadists and their useful idiots will storm embassies because of cartoons, which is what happened all over the world over some Danish cartoons (pictures that were skillfully augmented by exceptionally vicious anti-Mohamed cartoons that an Imam drew when he didn’t get the proper reaction to the original cartoons).  And of course, if we ban cartoons people have already drawn, the Islamists will hunt down people who merely suggest drawing cartoons, as happened to poor Molly Norris, who had to go into permanent hiding for her suggestion.

If you pay a blackmailer, he won’t go away.  He’ll come back for more.  “It’s always something — if it ain’t one thing, it’s another.”  Those who wish to drain the American bank account by chipping away at Constitutional freedoms will discover themselves bankrupt, burqaed and muzzled.  The radical Islamists will not be grateful for our sacrifice, they will be delighted by our obeisance, and they will push and demand more and more and more.  Further, because they know we haven’t got the stomach for the fight, each demand will be accompanied by bloodshed, along the lines of the Mafioso who slices off an ear or a finger, or blows away a knee cap, to make his point.

To those who say “But they’ll kill our troops,” I have one more thing to say:  What the hell do you think the Islamists have already been doing to our troops for the past eight years?  Everything the troops have been fighting and dying for goes away if we unilaterally surrender our Constitution and bow to our new sharia overlords.

“It’s always something — if it ain’t one thing, it’s another.”

UPDATEThis post perfectly illustrates the one-way street nature of sharia and its adherents.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. MacG says

    Book “It’s a slippery slope and a censoring government will always slide you down to the midden at the bottom of the hill as quickly as possible.”

    What then happens when you apply the adage “If you can’t say something nice don’t say anything at all”?  Will I be brought up on charges becasue I said nothing IMPLYING hate speech by my silence?

    It’s always something.  The pattern you describe Book is exactly how we got to where we are today in so many ways.  Take the phrase “cruel and unusual punishment”.  It was penned when it was not so unusual to draw and quarter someone, tie them to an ant hill, or put them in a stockade for public humiliation.  Now it means the an inmate got chunky penut butter twice instead of creamy even though he asked nice.

    It really comes from what is the zero point or the norm from which we evaluate things, hence the problem with relativism.  It’s how hte Europeans got to “at least the trains run on time”, it’s how we got from full length skirts to micro minis or how we got from TV couples sleeping in twin beds to nekkid people beamed into our living rooms.  The pendulum swings both ways.  This is why the left is terrified any time Roe V Wade coems up on the horizon.  They are afraid if they give an inch the Conservatives will push for a mile.

    We mustn’t offend anyone – which in and of itself is offensive.  See it IS always something.

  2. says

    Book,
    You do remember when the Roman Catholics rioted in New York when Serrano revealed his “Piss Christ,” right?
    When the photo of Bill Ayers trampling the American flag was published, you recall the murderous outrage of Americans, right?
    All the dozens, if not hundreds of photos of Middle Easterners burning the American flag and killing the American President in effigy…yes, caused all those riots…
    You don’t remember them?
    Terry Jones has the right to burn the Koran. And primitive people can riot all they want.
    And please, don’t call the Koran ‘holy.’
    Definition of HOLY, from Merriam-Webster: : exalted or worthy of complete devotion as one perfect in goodness and righteousness.
    Cutting off heads, pedophilia, rape and subjugation of the ‘infidel’ is not what I would call holy acts. All commanded in the Koran.

  3. SADIE says

    I’d like to refer to the book burning, riots and all matter of things related to Islam as the Dulcolax theory – or in less polite terms Wholly Sh*t.
     
    Has anyone noticed that every other awful and ugly news item and response is becoming Sharia compliant (that’s submissive in my lexicon) and requires a full blown discussion. Where the hell is the discussion at the other end of the story. Where are the “quotes” from the murderers, rioters, professional head lopping off thugs and slugs of the planet. Has anyone asked Hamid Karzai why he felt it necessary to make an announcement to a country of 72% illiterate in their own language, let alone English about one pastor in Florida. It’s absolute insanity to even discuss, dissect and ponder morals, ethics and right and wrong with maniacs.

  4. says

    Bookworm: If we allow the government to ban ugly speech, we suddenly find ourselves in a situation that sees the government determining what’s ugly. 

    Quite so, and you are right to stand for free speech.
     
    Bookworm: Sadly, however, significant numbers of Americans, all (almost all?) liberal (including Lindsay Graham, who is RINO through and through) think that what Jones did requires government intervention, in the form of federal laws banning Koran burning, or religious book burning, or all book burning, or Islam insulting, or whatever the liberal thinks will work to placate the Muslims so that they don’t riot and murder innocent UN workers.

    Lindsay Graham supported a ban on flag burning, so calling him a liberal is simply not correct. Anyone of prominence who has advocated such a ban? 
     
    Bookworm: To those who say “But they’ll kill our troops,” I have one more thing to say:  What the hell do you think the Islamists have already been doing to our troops for the past eight years? 

    In fact, Koran burning emboldens radicals and isolates moderates in the Muslim world. It will lead to increased violence, at least in the short run. Free speech comes with a price. 
     
     

  5. suek says

    >>Koran burning emboldens radicals and isolates moderates in the Muslim world.>>
     
    And cartoons, and who knows what ever else they’ll manage to find insulting and reason to kill people…

  6. says

    suek: And cartoons, and who knows what ever else they’ll manage to find insulting and reason to kill people…

    No doubt. It’s important to support moderate voices, but pluralism means having to accept speech that you find repugnant. It wasn’t easy to create such a society in the West, and there was a great deal of violence before reaching it. Even today, some speech in liberal societies is still proscribed, for instance, Nazi symbols in Germany, or burning crosses with the intent to intimidate in the U.S. 
     

  7. SADIE says

    “And cartoons, and who knows what ever else they’ll manage to find insulting and reason to kill people…”
     
    Here’s a ‘what ever’ moment


    KUALA LUMPUR, April 6 (Bernama) — The government can take action against people who abuse Quranic verses for certain interests and dispute all forms of worship by Muslims in this country.
    Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom said this followed the special conference of the National Fatwa Council on Dec 3 last year to discuss issues including abuse of Quranic verses.
    “The muzakarah agreed that non-Muslims who cite Quranic verses according to their own understanding without sincerity is an affront to the sanctity of al-Quran and can cause doubt and slander in society,” he told Dewan Rakyat Wednesday.

  8. BrianE says

    I may tolerate other religions, but I certainly don’t have to, nor can I respect them.

    I need to speak clearly the message of Jesus when he said– “I AM the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me.”

    There is no name under heavan, given among men, whereby we must be saved.

    The message of Christianity is not that other religions are false though. It’s the message of God, dwelling among us, buying us back through his sacrifice.

    Should the Koran have been burned? I wouldn’t have and it serves no purpose other than to point out the still violent nature of Islam. 

    Secularists refuse to face– to their own destruction, the fact we are in a global battle with radical Islamists. They do intend to convert us, enslave us or kill us by any means. 

  9. MacG says

    Zach “but pluralism means having to accept speech that you find repugnant.”

    Tell that to THEM.  We are alraedy good at it…Book even lets you post :) 

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply