I note that many of the responses to my recent article “The Fire This Time” take me to task for considering Terry Jones’ burning of the Koran as reprehensible. I seem to have been largely misconstrued and the point I was trying to make is lost. I understand the intention behind Jones and especially the gutsy Ann Barnhardt, but I could never burn a book, not even Mein Kampf. Both my conscience and my heritage forbid it. Moreover, book-burning in these instances reeks too much of a stunt.
More importantly, for all the bravado it exhibits (Jones) or the mettle it takes (Barnhardt), it is in the long run not an effective measure, and sets a precedent whose consequences cannot be foreseen and which may come back to haunt us. When one burns a book, one condones the burning of the library of Alexandria. There are other and far more effective ways of fighting evil, whether with the pen or the sword, with scholarship or with militant courage. Or both.
I understand that Jones and Bernhardt have put themselves at risk, as did Molly Norris not so long ago. It is precisely this which is commendable, for it separates them from the pusillanimous community of journalists, public intellectuals and elected leaders cowering in fear, ignorance and political correctness. But book burning is not an isolated act. It occurs not only in a given time and place but in a vast symbolic dimension in which the burning of a book carries implications of censorship, bigotry and totalitarian repression of speech and thought. If one burns the Koran or Mein Kampf or The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, one also validates the “bonfire of the vanities.” This is why book burning as such is “reprehensible.” It is indelibly associated with a tradition of cultural closure and anti-intellectuality and is a standard technique of dictatorial regimes—whether a book is physically incinerated, banned or prevented from bring published.
“A good book is the precious life-blood of the master spirit, embalmed and treasured up on purpose to a life beyond,” wrote John Milton in the Areopagitica. An evil book, by contrast, is the infected blood of a diabolical spirit that contaminates the body politic. But good books have often been regarded as evil books and cast upon the flames. Clearly, we have a double problem on our hands. When one burns a book, one justifies a paradigm. And when one burns a book, one also burns the concept of the book, the “life-blood” of a literate and reflective civilization. The book itself should be hors de combat. Similarly, there are evil ideas abroad in the world, but—assuming it were possible—one does not oppose an evil idea by eliminating ideas altogether, except, of course, for the ideas of the eliminator.
Whatever pluck or fortitude one needs to conduct an auto-da-fé as an individual act of protest is better invested in hitting back in other ways—electing the right people, writing and reading articles and books, participating in information campaigns, supporting our troops, getting involved.
In short, the way to fight an evil book is with a good book. Ideas must be met with ideas in the same way that an armed enemy intent on aggression must be met with force of arms, pre-emptively if necessary. This was the point I was trying to make in my article when I argued that what was really going up in flames was not a book but the house of Western civilization. We focus on what may be a publicity stunt or even a particular act of bravery, but remain oblivious to a disaster in the making. Torching the Koran is only a distraction, a sideshow, creating controversy that ultimately exhausts itself in useless wrangling while at the same time giving the wrong historical example.
Perhaps the word “reprehension” that I used was too strong, written in the heat of the moment. And certainly, what is even more rebarbative is the reaction of many of our media mavens and bien pensants who, as Diana West writes, “like dhimmified, mentally besieged peoples rush to protect Islam,” leaving our freedoms “unguarded and devalued.” But however we decide to enter the lists, books should not be burned, banned or strangled in the crib.
Well said.
One must agree, entirely.
It is insensitive and vulgar to burn any book.
What if someone needed to know how to sacrifice infants to the devil and you burned the only available babyburners manual?!
It never occurred to me to burn my copy of the Koran. No! Instead, I tossed it into an abandoned septic tank, where it would feel at home with other things like it.
Mr. Solway is a Good Guy, but he ain’t never locked and loaded and jis kep acomin’.
Aunt Stella used to say, “If its Bad, then crunch it, smunch it, punch it, and bury it deep; or, it’ll come an’ tear your throat out while you’re sleepin”.
I agree; book burning is something I associate with Nazis, not Americans.
Book and flame are incidental in this case. The Qur’an itself is even accidental to the demonstration of resistance to dhimmitude, of a normal rejection of intimidation by the histrionic and hyperventilating culture of Islam. If Islam hadn’t fetishised the book, if instead they fetishised some other object, then those who resist the intimidation would focus on the other fetish. The book is neither here nor there, just being around.
We can expect a poet and essayist to wax sentimental about the innate sanctity of the published word. This reification does us little good in the struggle for stable relations with masses of hysterical and violent peasants in the greater world. It’s silly, to be blunt, to worry ourselves about what is physically written as if it were a spirit-laden fetish. If The Word were important, then one would never delete an email about Islam. We’re looking instead at a Modernist bibliophile’s sentimental attachment to objects of art, of a sort. Books are pulped, which is similar to burning, and are used as underlay for tarmac. How upsetting is that? It’s not the destruction of books, it’s the associations of burning that offends some; and it is the association of burning a specific book, i.e. the Qur’an, that makes the burning nothing more than a reasonable response meant to make a specific point: Muslims can suck eggs. No different from drawing Mo-toons. It’s a rational response to an irrational challenge. The rest is incidental.
Mr. Solway:
Seconded.
It is much more effective to deconstruct the theme by pointing out it’s inconsistencies and fallacies than to burn it.
Especially as it relates to someone’s holy texts, it gives needless offense for little or no gain.
As much as I understand the sentiment behind the act, methinks Jones and Barnhardt have overlooked the virtues of conversion in prefernece for confrontation.
As much as I understand the sentiment behind the act, methinks Jones and Barnhardt have overlooked the virtues of conversion in preference for confrontation.
I snort derisively in your general direction. We’re not dealing with an enemy that finds virtue in conversation.
Seconded.
Now for “to deconstruct” used by Bilgeman: This belongs to the vocabulary of exponents of the menace called sociology. If someone uses that particular verb to express himself, he has chosen to join the ranks of post-modernist scavengers feeding on what they see as the rotting corpse of our (mark well: Christian) civilization. It should give Bilgeman a pause, indeed, and make him think twice before he speaks. Frankly, only intellectual cripples “deconstruct” anything.
“This belongs to the vocabulary of exponents of the menace called sociology.”
It does?
“If someone uses that particular verb to express himself, he has chosen to join the ranks of post-modernist scavengers feeding on what they see as the rotting corpse of our (mark well: Christian) civilization.”
I did? Is there a uniform I now have to wear or something?
Spit-shine on the Birkenstocks or some such hideousness?
“Frankly, only intellectual cripples “deconstruct” anything.”
Can we disagree here? Or maybe just seek a common definition.
Only intellectual cripples CLAIM to “deconstruct” things, but only people who have actually READ THE BOOK can ACTUALLY deconstruct them, which is another reason that burning books is….BAD, m’kay?
“It does?” Yes.
“I did?” Yes.
“Can we disagree here?” Your choice.
“We’re not dealing with an enemy that finds virtue in conversation.”
Yes, quite… I said “conversion”…CONVERSION.
“I snort derisively in your general direction.”
Here, have a tissue.
My mistake. I misread. Of course, they don’t find virtue in conversion either. In fact, conversion is a beheadable offense, innit?
“In fact, conversion is a beheadable offense, innit?”
I think so…only one of a long list of offenses for which they’ll pop yer top.
Which only serves to make Christianity or Judaism that much more attractive.
Few people are going to care enough to hurt you if you go from a reform temple to an orthodox synagogue, right?
And folks would only look at you oddly if you DON’T move from Baptist to Methodist to Presbyterian congregations as your income increases.
On purely pragmatic grounds though, better that they behead THEIR apostate cousin Ali than MY cousin Billy the Knight of Columbus.
knowhutImean?
To what do you intend to convert the jihadist imams? To the evangelical notion that one is saved simply by trusting Jesus, hence free to act out as he will? How will that deter him from blowing up school buses? Or the salvation by grace alone people who are stuck with with their proposition that God saves or damns then irrespective of their behavior and therefore what they do is of no import. How are such moved to legitimate social concerns? And those two false philosophies consume 99% of protestantism.On the catholic side, they teach and have taught so many salvation methodologies, unscriptural and inherently contradictory, that their game is also a roll the dice, holler and hope deal. All of the above are just as satanic as are the moslem raghead crazies.
But, you know what? What if we all just lived by the new testament. Obeyed everyone of God’s NT laws. No war, no crime, no poverty!
Shall we give it a try?
Whatever pluck or fortitude one needs to conduct an auto-da-fé as an individual act of protest is better invested in hitting back in other ways—electing the right people, writing and reading articles and books, participating in information campaigns, supporting our troops, getting involved.
In short, the way to fight an evil book is with a good book. Ideas must be met with ideas in the same way that an armed enemy intent on aggression must be met with force of arms, pre-emptively if necessary.
This approach, while likely to elicit solemn head-nodding from the right people, means nothing when your enemy cares far more about making sure those nodding heads are properly separated from their associated shoulders.
If you visit StandUpAmericaNow.org, Terry Jones’ web site, you will find the following;
“Stand Up America! is holding rallies in major cities all around America. Dr. Terry Jones of Dove World Outreach Center is the primary speaker. The purpose of Stand Up America! is to encourage Americans and the Church to stand up. In other words, it’s not only geared towards the Christian community, but its geared towards us as Americans to stand up on issues that we feel are important.
It is about issues like the national debt, that our President is running us into at an almost unrepairable rate. Many people just complain about it in their homes, they complain about it at work, they complain about it to their kids and their wife, but actually they need to stand up and do something. They need to get some people together, protest, write their congressman. In other words, it is time for us as Americans to take back America. We are allowing people to control America who do not have America’s best interest in mind. It is time for us to stand up.”
So, I guess Jones agrees with Solway, even if Solway doesn’t agree with Jones.
While the author is correct on many minor points, the article earns a grade of EPIC FAIL from me. The claim “There are other and far more effective ways of fighting evil” is key. The theme of the video, that the Politically Correct Narrative is the antithesis of why the USA was founded, is more important than is the “stunt” used to gain the attention that includes this very article. The video dramatically exposes the vile deceptions and double standards of the PC Narrative, as espoused by Senator Lindsey Graham, henceforth to be known as Jackass.
Finally, my dear Author, if you think you know of a better way to fight evil — why waste bandwidth on this critique? If you are not the lead dog, the view never changes. Mush! Both my one word review of the article and my suggestion for your next step: Mush!
“When one burns a book, one condones the burning of the library of Alexandria.”
Utter fatuousness.
As well say, “when one clips a fingernail, one condones the amputation of the arm”. Equally meaningless.
A wad of paper is not sacred. If you insist on treating it as such, then the Church of the Sacred Mr. Whipple would like to talk to you about how you treat their holiest of holies, Charmin.
“books should not be burned, banned or strangled in the crib”
Does that include those books that advocate the burning, banning, and strangling in the crib of both books and people?
The author assumes there is just one reason to burn a book, to prevent it from being read. Obviously, this was not the case here. What we have here is a failure to disambiguate.
I don’t mean to offend, but the theme of your article reminded me of a quote by Confucius: “When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger.”
You are wrong and your analogy is false. Book burnings usually are acts to stifle free speech. In each of the instances you discussed, the Koran burning was an exercise of free speech via action. I cannot believe you don’t see the distinction.
No, this is not the Bonfire of the Vanities. It was a political statement – speech. It was not a ceremonial book banning. Whatever superstition forbids you from burning a book, no matter what (they are burned all the time), you fail to rationalize it. The fact that book burning is associated with repression of thought in oppressive regimes is insufficient reason to develop a phobic horror of burning a book for any reason. Pastor Jones was not trying to repress anyone’s thought. He was expressing his own.
People who deal in books burn them all the time. They are burned in movies for artistic reasons.
You accuse Jones of bravado and praise Barnhardt for her mettle, yet they did the same thing. This makes it appear that your difficulty with Jones is that he is a pastor, not that he theatrically burned a book.
I have a library that threatens to take over my family’s living space. I take books with me wherever I go. Whoever is sitting in the passenger seat when we go out has to hold a six inch stack of books for me. When I go to a restaurant, I read. Like Roger Kimball, I too own the 11th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica and consider it to be a treasure.
I once tried to burn a set of manuals for an obsolete computer program. After I threw the first one into the woodstove, I didn’t feel very good about it and stopped. But if it would do anything towards solving the terrible problems we are having wrt Islam and the political correctness which stifles our speech, I would not hesitate to burn a common, replaceable book, which the Koran, unfortunately, is.
You are being utterly silly.
Burning books is evil.
Some, however , are suitable for toilet paper.
No sale.
I’ll let the hypebole (Library of Alexandria? Really?) slide. These were acts of speech, not of suppression. You may not personally like book burnings even as acts of free speech and protest. That is your choice. Nonetheless, you certainly should not try to impose your preferences to curtail constitutional rights and free speech. Leave that to the left-wingers as they excel in posing as arbiters of permitted speech.
The Nazi and other book burnings were to prevent the ideas contained within the books from being read by the citizens (or to threaten same citizens from reading any books that happened to avoid the fire). This was to suppress the concepts and ideas. If a Christian church were to take Harry Potter books (obtained legally or illegally) and burn them to prevent children from reading about magic that would, in my opinion, also be bad. Again, it is to prevent the concepts/ideas from being read by the people.
The burning of the koran however is different in my opinion. Instead of preventing the concepts/ideas from being read by others (like non-muslims) these actually very brave individuals have reacted to irrational attempts to suspress freedom of speech as well as religion – in this case to disagree with the teachings of islam. As you know, any negative vibes about mohammed or islam not only offend muslims (negative vibes against any religion offend the followers) but also appears to inflame them (e.g., naming a teddy bear mohammed, wearing a cross, handing out a phamplet, disagreeing with the person who wants to cut off your head, etc.).
They are not preventing anyone from reading the book (other than that specific physical copy). Instead, they are demonstrating against the attempts not only by irrational followers of the prophet but by members of our own government who appear to be more interested in kowtowing to this religion than to stand up for the freedoms that Americans have fought and died for (and are apparently wasting their lives for currently).
I think they also, as others will probably do in the future, are attempting to show the world that this tolerant and peaceful religion is anything but. Trying to act as if islam is open to conversation and reason is self-defeating (yes there are good people who happen to be muslims, but I think that truly good muslims can’t be good, tolerant people). If our political “leaders” continue on the path to dhimmitude, then what other expressions of speech, faith, etc. will be considered offensive and will thus be “unallowed”? I believe that is what the book burners are trying to show/accomplish.
Precisely.
The left-wing and/or Afgahn War proponents oppose this street theatre because it exposes the cruel barbarity of the Moslem cavedwellers we ostensibly “help.”
tl;dr all comments
just want to point out one thing she says during the video: these are pieces of paper with ink on them, which can be reprinted.
thus her actions become symbolic and more like a commentary, and not your “traditional” book burning.
in any case, the internet has made book burning redundant. nothing on the internet ever goes away, unless you burn the internet.
any argument against book burning in the traditional sense has thus been rendered invalid.
Completely agree.
BTW, mean things happen to millions of books every year. Did you know that when publishers can’t sell books, they tear the covers off and throw them in the dump? Yeppers.
The core point in barnhart’s videos is not that of burning of books, but instead about the right to free speech and freedom of expression. The need to assert those rights exists because politicians like Graham undermine it when they play invertebrate dhimmis.
There is an “Islam problem,” and, thanks to the global rise of Islam, it is hitting our shores faster and harder than anyone would have expected just a year or two ago.
While Terry Jones’ wisdom in burning the Koran can be debated, no one should deny his right to freedom of expression. Also, the ideology that drove those “Koran riots” killers to take the lives innocent fellow human beings (who happen to have been there to help the people of Afghanistan) are squarely responsible for the deaths, not Terry Jones for exercising his freedoms. If the freedoms that this great land of our bestows on its people aren’t sacrosanct, what else is?
“Perhaps the word “reprehension” that I used was too strong, written in the heat of the moment.”
Say, the word PERHAPS and the whole walk-it-back thing was NOT written in the heat of the moment: how much time does a fellow need to pull his head to a place where there is clean air?
My advice is to just admit you considered all this in no other light than your childhood thoughts on traditional book burnings, that you still find that traditional act to be reprehensible, but now you realize there are many more factors here than you ever considered.
Mr. Solway, you need to quit going all quivery and slippery, and you need to face up to your very flawed arguments. I don’t doubt that you mean well in your writings on the Koran burnings, but you continue to insult the intelligence of many very thoughtful and well-informed readers.
For instance, you say, “I seem to have been largely misconstrued and the point I was trying to make is lost.”
–No, we read your severe and unwarranted criticisms of Pastor Jones, and we reacted accordingly. We know the meaning of the word “reprehensible.” And after reading your comments above, many of us still consider it inapplicable. Quit trying to pass the blame off on supposedly benighted readers.
You also write, “When one burns a book, one condones the burning of the library of Alexandria.”
–This is as false, absurd, illogical and insulting–similar to the way in which Leftists scream “racist” at anyone who opposes Obama’s policies. Many others here have already made the crucial point that neither Pastor Jones nor Ann Barnhardt have advocated the complete destruction of Islamic writings. They both know that that would be counterproductive, for one thing because we must know what is in those writings so that we can effectively counter them. Obviously one of Barnhardt’s main points in her second video was to educate Americans about the many evil ideas advocated in the Koran. Jones and Barnhardt are similar to brave writers such as Robert Spencer who do important work in exposing the evils of Islam–they are just going about it in different ways. Jones and Barnhardt have not done it in a way acceptable to Inside-the-Beltway types, but for many of us their lack of pseudo-sophistication makes Jones and Barnhardt much more credible. You seem to be an intelligent person, Mr. Solway, but you obviously have been blinded by your prejudices in regard to book-burning.
You say, “burning of a book carries implications of censorship, bigotry and totalitarian repression of speech and thought.”
–Again, you are making a tremendously false leap–another false “You’re a racist” type of accusation. Jones and Barnhardt are obviously burning Korans because it is a politically incorrect act which is considered totally “verboten,” not only by Muslims but by our “elites,” and because too few Americans have been willing to stand up against Political Correctness. As the poster “Anonymous” put it earlier, “These were acts of speech, not of suppression.”
You write that instead of doing what Jones and Barnhardt have done, we should be “electing the right people, writing and reading articles and books, participating in information campaigns, supporting our troops, getting involved. In short, the way to fight an evil book is with a good book.”
–Give me a break. The evil book which is the Koran has inspired millions of Muslims to act with great physical violence against non-believers. While there is nothing wrong with those things you suggested in that list, much more needs to be done than “reading and writing articles,” etc. The West is in such an advanced state of dhimmitude that we need many more individuals who will stand up publicly, bravely and without equivocation, like Jones and Barnhardt have done.
So please stop wiggling, Mr. Solway. It doesn’t become you at all.
Ann Barnhardt’s action is an interesting one: On the on hand, she, like the classical Church bookburners, (whose bonfires were of heretical or non-Christian works) sees what she set on fire as demonic. And of course, Islam’s rise was marked by bookburning, which continues to this day. But those were all, in one way or another, “official:” actions performed, or at any rate sanctioned by, the dominant religion.
Ms. Barnhardt, on the other hand, is doing it as an individual citizen’s protest against the official privileging of a particular religion by a state that was founded on not doing so.
True, the scholar tends to think of all books as sacred, this is certainly the traditional Jewish attitude, as well. Of course, that adds to the impact of her transgressive piece of performance art, doesn’t it?
It is quite the contradiction, isn’t it? Here we have book burning as performance art deluxe, and the one wanting to stifle free speech are the opponents to the book burning. American liberalism once stood for free speech. Now it is indistinguishable from the worst forms of totalitarianism.
You can’t compare the burning down of the Alexander Library in the 11th century (by muslims, BTW) to burning a mass produced copy of a book in this post-Gutenburg era, when it can be reprinted in a matter of minutes. You can equate this book burning to censorship or fascism, because the fascists and the muslims who burnt the Alexander library were doing it to get rid of books of which no other copies existed, because they were hand written.
Jones and Barnhardt were doing two things. Breaking a taboo that is holding a spell over the West, and refusing to be a dhimmi. Islam requires that non-muslims do as muslims tell them. The interesting thing is that during the ramapages in afghanistan, lots of korans were burnt as buildings were set of fire: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/dispatches-afghanistan/burning-the-quran-kandahar-protest-the-burning-th
But there were no protests about the protesters setting korans on fire. Why? Because it doesn’t matter “what” is set on fire, but WHO sets it on fire. The teaching in the koran, that is open ended, is that muslims are superior and non-muslims must be dhimmified, made to be submissive. Terry Jones was not be a good dhimmi when he defied their command not to set a koran on fire. THAT was why they went beserk, NOT because he burnt a koran.
Correction: that should have said: You “can’t” equate Jones and Barnhardt’s book burning to censorship or fascism
“It is much more effective to deconstruct the theme by pointing out it’s inconsistencies and fallacies than to burn it.”
They kill you for deconstructing the theme by pointing out its inconsitencies and fallacies.
As several people have already pointed out that comparing Koran-burning to the burning of the library at Alexandria is ridiculous hyperbole, I won’t go there.
I will, however, speak of Molly Norris. Comparing Norris’ actions with those of Terry Jones and Ann Barnhardt is incorrect in at least two respects. First, Norris was a member of the Seattle liberal media establishment. As such, she was either conditionally or intentionally ignorant of the extent of Islamist hatred of western ideals of freedom. Her “Everyone Draw Mohammed Day” stunt was neither an intentional insult to Muslims, nor an attempt to support free speech. She was bandwagon jumping, hoping to get a little notoriety for herself, riding on the South Park-Mohammed train. Second, when the inevitable Islamist call for her immediate murder materialized, she backpedalled faster than Sonny Liston. She pulled her drawings from her website, and tried to distance herself from the event. When that failed to take the heat off, she went ghost. In short, Jones and Bernhardt knowingly put themselves at risk for a purpose they consider worthwhile. Norris stumbled into trouble. Running into traffic to save a child is commendable. Wandering into traffic playing Angry Birds on your IPOD is stupid.
Better to burn books than people.
“But however we decide to enter the lists, books should not be burned, banned or strangled in the crib.”
Hmmm. I fail to see the difference between a book being burned and one thrown into the trash (I’ve had to do that because my local public library does not take donations and I’m rapidly running out of room). Well, except for the fact that a burned book can provide heat in these times of high home energy prices. But in both cases, they are destroyed.
I also appreciate the point others have made that these koran burnings are an act of defiance, political speech of the highest order deserving of protection, though you do not appear to take such a position. Being a dhimmi to islam by following shari’a ( and submitting to islam as superior) is anathema to any civilized Westerner of truly Liberal thought (that’s Liberal with a capital ‘L’).
Personally, I’m all for Burn a Koran Day, sponsored by the Duraflame Charcoal Lighter Fluid company.
It seems to me the author is taking a stance remarkably like:
‘War is evil. Thou shalt not kill. I am too civilized to defend myself. Can’t we all just get along? Kum-by-yah. I sure that discussing things rationally with a madman will make it all right.’
Not me. Burn a Koran a day until the muslim world is in flames. We’re burning paper, and they kill humans.
They shoot lions, tigers, rabid wolves and other animals that threaten us, right?
Well, we’re not shooting. Not until we see the whites of their eyes. But like zombies, they must come when we burn the Koran.
It just doesn’t get any easier.
Burning an entire library of rare books and hand-printed manuscripts? NO !
Burning a single copy (or scattered, multiple protest burnings) of a book that has more copies in existence than there are trees on the earth, and which are being printed and re-printed at a rate far faster than any burnings? YES !
The inability to different between the two situations, and thus clamp down on both situations shows a general lack of understanding, and seems to impute a false state of “Holiness” to books.
If a sensitive, philosophical soul were to say burning a book is BAD, but recycling newspapers and magazines into toilet paper and egg cartons is GOOD, it would raise further questions about his ability to understand the ephemeral nature of printed matter in general. In fact, the implication that if a binding and cover were added to the Newspaper — magically transforming it into a “book”, removing it from the recycling queue, and making it eligible for protection from burning — is a ridiculous notion.
Tossing all books in all situations in all ages into the same protective pot (while reminding the world of “Alexandria”) sounds good on some level, but in reality, the argument is spurious at best. Ann Barnhardt’s actions are far more valuable to civilization than any philosophic or moral position that would say don’t burn a book at any cost.
There are plenty of us out here who know how NOT to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water, but at the same time know there IS a time — in personal protest to make a symbolic point to the world — when a book, photo, magazine, newspaper, flag, effigy, or religious icon CAN be burned in the crib.
Banning? NO ! Burning? YES !